User talk:Snagemit/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
Welcome!
|
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Focchies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serenissima (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) 07:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Havana (1870), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Metz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
As you are interested in battles
you might want to help make sure that infoboxes comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Primary_infoboxes and Template:Infobox_military_conflict#Parameters. That would be very useful. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Is there an article I edited that violated those? If so, please link those here and I will try and fix it. Regards, Snagemit (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Infobox changes
Which guidelines do you follow when making these infobox changes? I'm asking because I've found some of your edits rather weird; you recently put "Decisive" infront of Swedish victory in the Battle of Warsaw (1705) - why? You also removed the amount of troops for each side, eg 3,500 Saxons and 6,000 Poles and Lithuanians and only left 9,500 - why? I don't think the infobox was overflooded with text as it was. Imonoz (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I put decisive because according to the strategic effects from the battle pretty clearly indicate that the battle was decisive for the Swedes, in regards to knocking the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth out of the Great Northern War (an opinion that is shared by almost every other wikia). Also, I rolled all the troop numbers into one to reduce clutter, the infobox is meant to give a general overview of the battle, instead of going into every specific detail- the article can do that. However, feel free to revert or change any of my edits if you feel that they are incorrect, I am, of course, not infallible. Regards, Snagemit (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the infobox was not overflooded as it was (this is why I asked you which guidelines you follow, if there's anything I'm not aware of that I should know). Surely one should avoid clutter, but I don't think splitting the 9,500 allies into their respective numbers (3,500 Saxons and 6,000 Poles and Lithuanians) can be considered clutter. If anything, I think it was helpful. While the aftermath might suggest so, I haven't actually found one single source stating this battle was a decisive victory for the Swedes; the infobox guidelines which I've seen do however recommended that we do not use statements as "decisive", "pyrrhic", "total" etc in the infoboxes. Anyway, I was just curious. Thank you for your answer. Imonoz (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, feel free to change it if you feel I was incorrect. I would welcome any improvements to the article, preferably sourced ones if you have any. In the future, if you wish to change or revert any of my edits, please do so as you wish and without feeling the need to contact me, as I am not a moderator or in any position of power here and my contributions are of no special merit. Best wishes, Snagemit (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Same here, for Battle of Navarino. Is there a point to not giving both the historical place name (Navarino) and the contemporary one (Pylos)? Also, why can't the image caption state its creation date? Your only edit summary is "infobox changes". ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
"if you wish to change or revert any of my edits, please do so as you wish and without feeling the need to contact me" so much for that... Imonoz (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
So? You can still do that..., genius. Maybe a bit less time on Wikipedia would refresh your linguistic skills... Snagemit (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- What's the point, if you're going to revert all the changes I do anyway? You don't follow any pattern; you say you're reducing clutter, by adding more clutter... And you never discuss anything in the talkpage before you make these edits; instead you revert the changes I do, with no explanation. In the Battle of Warsaw (1705) you combined dead and wounded and clumped the Polish, Lithuanian and Saxon numbers together, to "reduce clutter" as you put it, while in the Battle of Dynekilen you add this to casualties2:
- 21 captured
1 barge captured
3 galleys captured
1 galley sunk
2 half-galleys captured
1 half-galley sunk
1 half-galley destroyed
2 sloops captured
1 galliot sunk
5 transport ships captured
3 transport ships destroyed.
- That's not how you reduce clutter, buddy. I can try refreshing my linguistic skills, you can try refreshing your common sense; that way we can both improve. Imonoz (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Man, you are sensitive are you? Maybe if you actually spent sometime outside and tried to make some friends, you wouldn't be so painfully upset over being wrong. If you actually took the time to read any other naval battle article (here are some, although they contain big and complex words, so be warned) the infobox always states the exact strength and casualties to assist the reader in understanding in a quick glance what the losses were (or exact as it can be; we weren't there, you know). The Strength section gives the forces that were in the battle on both sides, and the Casualties section gives casualties on both sides. So as you have put a perfect example here, the Swedes (hitting close to home, ain't I? ;)) lost 21 men captured, along side these ships- which corresponds with the Strength section of the Swedish forces having that amount of ships. Its perfectly clear (or as you prefer, uncluttered, and far better than you preferred version of 9 and 4 warships- (what warships exactly? Who knows?) and 21 merchant ships (what merchant ships?) and some unclear mess for the casualties section. Its not my fault the Swedish got their asses kicked so hard on that day their casualties roll reads like a f*cking Russian novel. The edit ultimately results in a far clearer understanding for the reader, yunno, the people Wikipedia is for, rather than having different numbers for the strength and casualties section. Now, onto your second whining complaint, I'm not going around "reverting all your edits". You are the one doing that to me, several times, for absolutely no reason (what does the talk page have to do with anything?). I understand Wikipedia is a place where people come to collaborate, and so (unlike you) I'm not going to instant revert any edit just because I don't like it. Rather, I see what it is and make the decision to either improve or revert it, recognizing that clarity is paramount in infoboxes (much like the rest of the article). Shortening names, combining killed and wounded (while not preferable) has already been featured before on many FAC articles, so your comparison is basically a false equivalence. Third, the jab at "your linguistic skills" was not actually meant to imply that your grammar was bad (it's passable) but that your bizarre whining to me must have been your misunderstanding of the sentence "if you wish to change or revert any of my edits, please do so as you wish and without feeling the need to contact me", which has always been the case (nothing has changed because I counter-reverted some of your reverts). Now, I see that your real problem is anger management. As a concerned editor, I advise you to seek help and try to avoid getting to upset in the future.
Wishing you all the very best, Snagemit (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, "clumping" (as you choose to call it) is perfectly acceptable in an infobox as the number of men. How do you recommend we de-clump the Dynekilen article, genius? Snagemit (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're here solely to put your own little stamp on every article and ruin them, your recent troll-post made that obvious. I contacted you to prevent an edit war, you gave me the Go ahead! and said there was no need for me to contact you, then you proceeded with reverting my edit anyway (that's hilarious). Have you made any proper contributions to Wikipedia yet? Or is making it worse the only thing you've accomplished so far? All you do is fiddling around in the infobox (where it's completely unnecessary) and adding fiction; such as decisive Swedish victory to the Battle of Warsaw (1705), which is not backed by any sources. But you go ahead with your destructive ways... let's see how long you'll last before the inevitable block stops you (hopefully not too soon—you are funny). Imonoz (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
That the best you can come up with? I can see your comebacks are as poorly thought out (and spelt) as your edits. No wonder reverting them isn't an issue. Good luck, Imonoz. You will need it. My best regards, Snagemit (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, [[1]] might be a good website for you to read up on in the future. By the way, thank you for referring to one small edit as total validation of your "logic", but then you would know all about "small things", wouldn't you? Hey, I don't mind. I certainly wouldn't treat you different for such a matter, I'm very accepting, as demonstrated by responding to your display of ignoramus instead of just ignoring you like your peers. Again, my greatest apologies, but I must leave, for I have a life. Farewell. Snagemit (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's somewhat of a pattern, really; you managed (should I say managed? Or is it intentional? I can't tell..) to ruin the infobox in the Battle of Öland article, too... luckily another user was there to correct your errors. Your editing style is suspiciously unpredictable; you want all these details in the Battle of Dynekilen infobox (which are not necessary as they can be easily seen in the actual article, in my opinion), but in the Battle of Warsaw (1705) you want to do the complete opposite, and not even separate the Saxons from the Poles and Lithuanians.. If you feel like the Warsaw article had too much in the infobox, how come you don't feel the same about Dynekilen, which has way more (ironically, you removed the military personnel from the infobox, but kept their casualties, why?). In the article about the Battle of Lyngør you reverted my edit which had the sentence "End of Danish naval involvement in the Napoleonic Wars" removed, from the infobox; do you have a source for that claim? Mind you, Denmark's participation ended in 1814, not 1812 (which, in my opinion, makes it hard to believe, hence why I'd like a source).
- These are the three reverts you've done to my edits, I get it that you might've been sad for any revert I did to any of your edits, but let's settle this then? I want to separate the Saxons from the Poles and Lithuanians, and killed from the wounded in the Battle of Warsaw (1705); add (once again) the military personnel to the Battle of Dynekilen; remove the "End of Danish naval involvement in the Napoleonic Wars" claim in the Battle of Lyngør article (unless you find a source for it). That's it. If you're very accepting, then perhaps you'd let me add these, rather small details, without you reverting them? And I'll be accepting towards you. Imonoz (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I thank you for this opportunity good sir. First, I must state for the record that I was not moved to being "sad" due to any of your reverts, and that you must have been very upset at me to spend so long thinking of a reply with such long words (I advise against it, I would not want such typing to impede your precious health). Second, I am pleased at your response, as it allows me to explain what I was really trying to achieve with those edits. Although verbal sparring can be a pretty fun exercise of the mind, you and I must both realise it will lead us nowhere. Now, to the point- the first article you addressing, Warsaw, feel free to add what you like. I am under the impression that it was you who made it to a Featured article in the first place- so feel free to add whatever you want there, and I shall refrain from intruding upon on your "mancave", as it were. Second, the Battle of Dynekilen infobox numbers are not cluttered simply because they are long- I would add the defition of cluttered (cover or fill (something) with an untidy collection of things.) here lest you have forgotten , or most probably, have never even heard it in the first place. There were a certain number of Swedish ships participating in the battle, and I have recorded them all because they were there. Just because they are long, does not necessarily make them cluttered, as they are clearly laid out from largest ship to smallest ship (although I am not dismissing your point, just questioning the lack of evidence as yet presented). Long, cluttered. See? Two seperate things! I feel I am making great progress with you, hopefully. And there were a certain number of Swedish ships lost during the battle, and I have listed them in the infobox, because that it what happened to them. Thats why they go into the casualties section. Them being long is unfortunate, but there is little I can do- I will admit that rolling K and W into one is not the clearest example if you will do likewise with rolling all ships that were destroyed, captured, or sunk into one category as well. Military personnel is (and I will let you know that I cannot claim to have a definitive guideline for this, so feel free to ignore my heedings) not neccesary for naval battles, as it is obvious there ships are crewed by people. This example is followed on several FAC's concerning naval battles, so you may feel free to ruin (your words, not mine) naval articles by adding the number of crewmen, and I will also feel free to revert these edits(no offence intended, of course). Third, as to my revert of your removal of the short sentence underneath the result section concerning the Battle of Lyngor, I must say that just because its intentions were indeed vague, that does not give you the right to "ruin the article" by deleting it, and thus "luckily" I was there to revert your edit. The "effective end of Danish involvement in the Napoleonic Wars" should really mean "End of Danish naval involvement in the Napoleonic Wars", which was true, as from the point onwards till the Danes joined the Coalition, they had only gunboats, which was important because it meant the British Royal Navy (which was blockading Denmark-Norway) were freed up to move elsewhere due to the Danish no longer being a threat to Coalition trade routes, so it was a significant result of the battle. If you had corrected the sentence instead of removing it, I would not have reverted you, and as such hurted your feelings (again, a thousand apologies). As such, these are my explanations presented before you, King Imonoz II, and I feel the matter is concluded. If you have anything further to discuss, please do so with haste.
Humblest regards, Snagemit (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll try to make this as short as possible and only answer the essential parts of your comment. First of, reducing "clutter" was something you initially replied with when I asked you about the changes done in the Warsaw 1705 article; "I rolled all the troop numbers into one to reduce clutter, the infobox is meant to give a general overview of the battle, instead of going into every specific detail", hence my reaction towards your recent edits done in the Dynekilen (1716) article. Speaking of this article, the Swedish strength you've listed is based on the letter written by the Danish commander, mentioning Swedish casualties... the Swedish strength was most likely larger, something you would've seen had you not removed the well-sourced material (the ability for you to discuss matters, before taking action, will come with age hopefully), now the article is a mess; most references doesn't even match what is said in the infobox (good job!). You also removed the Swedish coastal battery from the infobox (even though it took an active role), along with the total of guns and the military personnel (as previously noted) and according to your logic this makes the article better? Over to Lyngor (1812); I had not noticed that you had changed the sentence for the better, until now (good boy!). I congratulate you, this is the first actual improvement I've seen you do to an article thus far, hopefully you'll keep improving and perhaps one day even learn the importance of references and how to use them! With that said, and with the risk of you having another outburst reverting all my edits in a matter of an hour (again), I'll wait a bit until you've calmed down. Until then, try to have a good time (and remember; the conclusion of the actual matter depends entirely on your future approach here on Wikipedia). Imonoz (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, your majesty. It pleases me that we could resolve this matter in such a polite manner on both sides. It's a shame going out for a beer is out of the question, as I've recently learned the hops used in the brewing process are somewhat acidic (what a shame). To put it simply, maybe in the future I shall refrain from editing your articles, and you shall (with your royal assent, of course), do likewise to avoid such disputes. Good day, Emperor Imonoz I. (Also, I have one final request- do refer to me as "bestest mensch" instead of 'good boy', as is the ancient (and totally authentic) German tradition.)
Until next time, Snagemit (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Action of 14 September 1779 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rake
- Collaboration with the Axis Powers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Fascist Italy
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corsair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Hi Snagemit! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at History of Filipino Americans that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 1
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Marine
- Siege of Fort Zeelandia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Fort Zeelandia
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Nice
User page, where did you get it? :) Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, ok, my apologies. In bird culture is considered a dick move. :( Will credit you for the page Snagemit (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
Spanish Invasion of Portugal
Snagemit: I liked to know about the Portuguese frigate Gloria. This work took me three years and a half of investigation (i published it in 2014) but there are allways missing details. The text is better now. Greetings. Hispanicultur (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hispanicultur:I mean, the information was present on the Lord Clive wikipage, so I simply copied that into the main article. I'm afraid I don't have any more information on it except that it was a 38-gun frigate of the Portugese Navy operating during the Seven Years' War. It joined forces with an East India Company privateer force consisting of one ex-Royal Navy fourth-rate 60-gun ship of the line re-christened to Lord Clive, and the 40-gun privateer Ambuscade to retake Colonia do Sacramento by launching a naval bombardment. Lord Clive eventually blew up from stray fire caused by Spanish cannon shots that eventually reached the powder magazine, detonating the ship and killing 272 crewmembers, including Robert McNamara, the Scottish leader of the expedition and "head privateer". The Ambuscade and Gloria also suffered damage from the battle, and after seeing their lead ship blow up, they retreated from the battlefield. Maybe you might find information on the frigate from the Portugese naval rolls of the time? From what I gather, the Portugese fleet at the time was fairly miniscule, so I don't think it should be too hard to find information on the frigate if there is any out there. Oh, and thank you for the kind words. Muito obrigado. Snagemit (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I will. If in the future, you need some help with the History of Portugal/Spain just say it. Thanks again.
Hispanicultur (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Template:Campaignbox Pastry War
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Template:Campaignbox Pastry War, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop combining numbers of dead and wounded
The are several battle articles where you have combined the numbers of dead and wounded into one figure. You need to stop doing this. It is important that separate figures are given for dead and wounded because it provides greater detail.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Separate casualties by type if the information exists but there's no need to type "killed and wounded" in the "casualties" section, unless you have a source that gives killed,/wounded/missing/prisoner. Regards. PS why add a pipe to a blue link when it's a redirect? Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Battle of the Yellow Sea
I reverted your edits to the article because you added lots of pointless whitespace (please stop this!) and the picture that you selected is not usable because its copyright status is unknown. Just because it's on Commons, doesn't mean that it's legal to use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Jeg kan bruge et oversættelsesværktøj.
No, I don't ameliorate mistakes in edits that otherwise create a marginal or debatable improvement, when I can revert. I think it is beholden on the editor to correct. However, I will correct your misapprehension, my genius knows no bounds. Urselius (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Touched a nerve, have I? Amazing usage of Google translate by the way. I am stunned that a man of your linguistic skills would even bother with such a tawdry device. You know, I think it might be a handy tool in the future, but who knows, am I right? Farewell, Urselius. I hope that even a slight retort such as this does not drive you into using a basic translation service a second time, god forbid.Snagemit (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I shall, as is my wont, magnanimously accept your grovelling apology. Urselius (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I must protest, noble Urselius! Tis not an apology, but more of a mockery delivered in good humour, as in the spirits of the famed writers, Twain, Shakespeare, and Wordsworth (not that I would compare myself to them, of course). See, I was afraid you have gone so astray from the good Lord above that you percieved yourself above criticism or, in your case, a few clicks of a mouse. But no matter, for I shall set you on the right path. As I shall proceed to explain, Touched a nerve does not refer to an apology, but (in good humour, of course) refers instead to your unrestricted anger upon an innocent soul such as myself, and your brusque and churlish, and totally unwarranted tone (especially since there is a little something called "civility", lest you need a reminder). Then, I had an epiphany that you must be a devout follower of the Golden Rule, which is, as I am sure you are aware of, "to treat others the way you wished to be treated". By following this logic it appears you wish to be treated the same way you have treated others, that is, as an "ass" (as certain unsavory individuals would put it). I am only too happy to oblige. My humblest non-apologies, Snagemit (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Chiari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leopold I of Austria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Nicholas Hoult does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to reiterate what DonIogo reminded above. Please add edit summaries to your edits, as it will help other editors understand how an article is attempted to be improved, such as this edit done at Military history of Asian Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chutney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
D/S Alert
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 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 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.
| This page 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. |