User talk:SuperSkaterDude45/Archive 3

Your draft article, Draft:Mohammad Shahbakhti

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mohammad Shahbakhti".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Emilio Sotomayor Baeza.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Battle of Tran.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Andreas Michelsen.

User:Whoisjohngalt, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for adding this biography article to Wikipedia. It looks like much work has gone into the creation. My German is not so good even though I was stationed there in the 70s and 80s. Do you have a source for the Royal Victorian Order?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whoisjohngalt}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Whoisjohngalt: That was actually from the Italian wiki I've translated from. Not sure where the exact source is there however SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Pedro José Sevilla.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Raid on Callao

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Raid on Callao, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Julian Arnoldt-Russocki.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled and machine translations

Hi I have just reviewed a whole series of new articles you created and I’m pleased to see you producing so many great pieces. This morning I was going to suggest that you apply for autopatrolled rights. This would mean your articles go straight to search engine indexing and don’t need to sit in the new pages queue waiting for review. However on reading some of them this morning I don’t think you’re ready yet because of one thing. I can see that in some cases at least you’re just using unchecked machine translations, and this is regarded as a big no-no on Wikipedia. So much so that in fact last year it ultimately led to a user, LouisAlain, being banned from Wikipedia. Using machine translations is fine but you have to check them thoroughly and the expectation is that you have a reasonable command of the language you’re transform. Your translations from Polish have machine-created errors in them, which you, as the article creator, are expected to identify and resolve.

I’d be happy to support you becoming autopatrolled in future but for the moment please take care when machine translating, check your work thoroughly, and don’t Google translate from languages you don’t really speak. All the best Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Some of my older articles do have translation errors as I do primarily use several machine translating websites for my articles but most of my more recent articles are usually extensively checked for fluency and some are even created from the ground up such as all of my British, Indian and American articles. Thanks for the notice though as I do appreciate all form of constructive criticism and I'm willing to improve my articles in the near future! SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lima campaign: infobox

Hello. I have left you a message on the Talk:Lima campaign regarding your edit. Muwatallis II (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45

Thank you for creating Cesare Airaghi.

User:NotReallySoroka, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for translating the page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|NotReallySoroka}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary Mexico

Why should this redirect to a section of the History of Mexico article rather than the actual article on the Mexican Revolution? Furius (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary Mexico can generally also apply to the revolutions after the Mexican Revolution as there were still high unrest throughout the country with the Cristero War being the biggest example of this. Not to mention that it's a generally more appropriate redirect towards the era of Mexico rather than a specific conflict within that era. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But (a) the redirect is not pointing to the section of the page on the History of Mexico on the Cristero War - it is specifically pointing to the section on the Mexican Revolution, (b) despite the existence of several other revolutions in the country's history, the Mexican Revolution is nevertheless the primary topic (compare Revolutionary Russia, which redirects to Russian Revolution despite the existence of the 1905 Russian Revolution), (c) History_of_Mexico#Revolution_of_1910–1920 itself states that the "main article" on that era in Mexican history is Mexican Revolution. Furius (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The infobox clearly displays the years 1911–1928 and the war DID take place in those years. It should also be stated that despite the Mexican Revolution generally concluding around 1920, there were still many, many revolts across Mexico as before the consolidation of the government in 1928, Mexico was still very unstable due to political conflicts, hence why it's referred to as "Revolutionary Mexico". With that all stated, Mexico still had many other revolts during the 19th century including entire civil wars yet "Revolutionary Mexico" isn't referring to them because when most people think about Mexico during that era, they think about the 1910's and 1920's, not just a specific event from that decade, even if it's a major player to the geopolitical history of Mexico. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take this to WP:RfD Furius (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Revolutionary Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Revolutionary Mexico and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Revolutionary Mexico until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Furius (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Khyriv

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Khyriv, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ken Terajima

I left you a note before about your translated articles. You’ve put a lot of work into this one but also you’ve apparently just Google translated it and left the text unedited. As a result much of it is rubbish that doesn’t make any sense. Mccapra (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Stefanos Gennadis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stefanos Gennadis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanos Gennadis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwfixed (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Screwfixed. New messages go to the bottom of the page and not to the top. Also you didn't nominate it for deletion but tagged it as speedy. I declined it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Feel free to remove this notice from your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Please take your own advice and discuss on the talk page. I started a discussion 24 hours ago at Talk:Fire Emblem Engage and you're still reverting instead of participating in the discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Stefan Kwiatkowski

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45,

Thank you for creating Stefan Kwiatkowski.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

please the areas with

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45. Thank you for creating William H. Boyle. User:Idoghor Melody, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice one

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Idoghor Melody}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

DNB and the German National Library portal

I have just edited Albert von Barnekow. When you created the article Revision 23:57, 3 May 2022‎ you used the template {{cite DNB}} this template expands into the British Dictionary of National Biography. The template you needed to use is {{DNB portal}}, or to give it its full name {{German National Library portal}}, which is the similar to the Wikipedia.de DNB template -- PBS (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Indian rebelion

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: This isn't an edit war as I've just asked Fowler&fowler to discuss the flags in the article talk per WP:BRD. Considering you've also participated in a similar scenario a few hours ago, shouldn't you be following your advice? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  You have reverted a few times, it does not say "reverted one editor", it just says a series of reverts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: You have also reverted a few times in the same article, such as in Special:Diff/1101719727 with a solid 6 reverts in a 24 hour period with the same user. If you have read WP:BRD, typically discussions occur while the existing revision is the version before the editing conflict, hence why I restored the flags in the current revision as that's generally the version with consensus. Not to mention that Fowler&fowler had a disruptive edit summary in this revision which could be seen as a violation of WP:RUC. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is one revert, please read wp:editwar. Also this has been discussed, check the archives, the consensus was no flags. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've checked the archives and the most recent example I could find was whether some of the flags of the princely states were fictitious or not which occurred 2 years ago, not over their role in the infobox. And for the edit war point, it doesn't even violate WP:STONEWALL as I've only reverted in favor of keeping the current revision WITH the current consensus. If anything, you should be pointing that out to Fowler&fowler's talk page and the fact you've stayed silent about his disruptive edits is rather concerning. Also the consensus can change over time, see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 15 as an example of a changing consensus. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually it was about their presence in the infobox, and it does not matter how long ago it was, no consensus has been reached to overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Irrelvant, you have made claim provide an example, where do we use "unverified" flags? Nor have I cited any flags, what one do you think I added? is what you've directly said in said argument which was over the verifiability of the Mughal Empire flag as well as stating that you needed sources for flags such as these revisions: Special:Diff/1065475030 Special:Diff/1048512823. Also if an edit of the Union Jack has been placed in the infobox since a literal year ago, it's been rather evident that a new consensus has been reached that at the very least, the Union Jack should've remained in the current infobox. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The union flag is a verified flag, non of the ones you added back are. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Source for Oudh flag: here
• Source for Jhansi and Jodhpur flags: here
• Source for Jagdishpur flag: here
• Source for Gwalior flag: here
• See the Bhagwa Dhwaj for the Marathi flag

The only flag I couldn't find any source was the Mughal flag and that's really the only valid precedent for a fictitious flag. Now, present your sources on how they actually weren't used given you're adamant about making that point. Also if even you know that the Union Jack was used officially, why do you still stand behind it's removal? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I very much doubt any of those sources pass wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think passes RS, especially since:

1. You still fail to provide any soruces that they weren't used

2. None of them violate WP:RS/P

3. Your definition of reliable sources can differ from others

4. No consensus on whether they fail to pass RS

Reminder that even though you stated: The union flag is a verified flag, you still stood by its deletion. Care to explain why? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohh and read WP:RSP, Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS, its down to you to make a case for their use. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is over content within the articles such as general information contained within the text, not specifically about flags. It especially doesn't apply when you asked for the sources in the first place and still fail to provide any sources of your own which violates WP:OR. Also WP:RSP is a list of sources deemed to be unreliable and had you actually read it, you can see that none of the links linked here are directly mentioned besides possibly worldstatesmen but even then, it's only mentioned and not even stated whether it's use can be deemed to be reliable or not. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"See the Bhagwa Dhwaj for the Marathi flag", linked to a Wikipedia article. I think that is my lot now with that, if you want to make a case do so at the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There's at least 6 sources in that article and you could've simply, I don't know, maybe check the sources? Considering you still refuse/ignore to provide any sources as well as refuse to mention my other arguments; I see no reason why you're even trying to continue this, especially if you've already outright contradicted yourself before and adamant on prolonging this as much as possible. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And please stop pining me, I am capable of wording out yo have replied to me. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indian rebellion of 1857

You've reverted 4 times, clearly violating 3RR. I'm not the type that takes people to ANI, but let this serve as a warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Not exactly one to talk considering your edit summary on this revision violates WP:RU and WP:CIV and your refusal to even discuss a potential change in consensus because of the very compelling argument of "Yours is the intrusion" which also violates WP:BRD, regardless of how many reverts you yourself have made. WP:3RR only applies if there is an active content dispute and the reverts are because of a superflous reason at best and given that I only reverted your edit because it was the last version of clear consensus and I was willing to discuss this in the article talk but it seems like you don't care to follow what I just listed. Again, I'm open to having another discussion because warnings with reasonings that doesn't even violate WP:STONEWALL does absolutely nothing to solve a edit dispute besides create further division. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is also your previous edit warring on the British Raj page. I might as well ping @RegentsPark: here as he might have some commonsensical ideas Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked you already: do you have any scholarly sources that describe the flags used by each combatant in combat? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: That was like, a year ago and even in that previous argument, you continously violated WP:OR as you failed to provide any sources to your claims and I offered to go to the article talk multiple time such as here and here. By the way, nice threat made in your edit summary, yet another violation of WP:CIV and an added violation of WP:THREATEN! Also stop deflecting the topic, we're talking about the Indian Rebellion of 1857, not the British Raj as that article remains completely irrelevant to our current discussion. Interesting how you never choose to address your violations on several policies on the site btw. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you written anything on Indian history? Please enlighten. So do you have some scholarly sources describing the flags of the dozen-odd combatants that you added? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Again with the deflecting once more. Please read WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO before making a point like this because unless you're willing to change the flag customs of all military conflict articles, they typically use their respective flags to represent a country/faction. Don't know what you mean by dozen-odd combatants as all I did was restore the flags from a previous revision and I never added any new combatants and I've literally had a seperate discussion over the removal of ceremonial leaders from the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• No flags. Not "like, a year ago". Not today. Sorry, but trying to add them after a year is a tad sneaky (in appearance). --RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: If you had actually reviewed the edit history on the article, you'd see that the flags were already there months ago and the Union Jack was in the article long enough to last an entire year. Considering that it seems like you have no actual arguments to make other than hiding behind the "consensus" excuse (That wasn't actually even completed by the way) then it just comes off as a violation of WP:BRD considering the rationale behind a refusal for a simple article discussion by @Fowler&fowler: is essentially a non-argument. Reminder that this is about the Indian Rebellion of 1857, not the British Raj so I'm ignoring any further points made on that article and focusing strictly on the current edit conflict in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Doesn't make a difference. We are busy people. We don't pay minute-to-minute attention to an article of which we are the major authors. There are times we don't get around to doing it for months, but when we eventually do, and see garbage we remove it. It is as simple as that. Please see the authorship.

  I am number 1 and RegentsPark is number 4. It takes time and effort to add rigorous content. There are quite a few other articles, such as India, British Raj, Partition of India, Company rule in India, Mughal Empire where we have made content contributions and you have only argued about bells and whistles in infoboxes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are number 313 with 0% contribution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: To be honest, I really don't care how much you've contributed to the article nor how much either of you contributed to the article, especially since its literally a perfect example of a WP:IMADEIT "argument" rather than actually defending your reasoning for your edits other than "removing garbage". (Which is vague in of itself) Not everyone has to have a major contribution in a specific article or topic in order to be able to present their opinions or open discussions in the talk page and if you seriously think that's how Wikipedia works then I really don't know what to tell you at this point. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I am just discovering this thread [1], but thank you for having the courage to bring up these issues. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Nast page

During the last year, you have made suggestions to improve the Wikipedia entry on Thomas Nast. Accordingly, I want to call your attention to ThomasNast.com, a domain I have owned for 25 years and recently refreshed.

The site will give you a good overview of Nast in general and my biography in particular, America’s Most Influential Journalist: The Life, Times and Legacy of Thomas Nast. You can look at 160 Nast cartoons, each with its characters identified and its content and context explained. Categories include Christmas, Civil War, Lincoln, Tweed, Presidential Election Losers, Symbols, Shakespeare, and Inflation. The site’s purpose is to educate people about Nast and his work, as well as to preview my book.

The only previous substantive biography of Nast was published by Albert Bigelow Paine in 1902, and is frequently cited in Wikipedia. Although Paine was a good storyteller, his book has many significant errors and omissions because Nast misinformed him (eg., Nast never went to the front during the Civil War) or didn’t tell him about important events (Nast spent a year, beginning in May 1867, on his Grand Caricaturama (33 9 by 12 foot pictures in a traveling panorama which failed), Paine gave it two sentences).

There were also facts about his life that neither he nor Paine knew. Eg., Nast thought he was born on September 27, 1840, but his Landau birth certificate, issued under the auspices of the King of Bavaria, shows it was September 26. Understandable, every prior mention of his birth date is incorrect. I have made the correction to his Wikipedia entry along with a a copy of his birth certificate.

My 830-page biography contains 1,000 Nast cartoons, illustrations, sketches and paintings — 800 from Harper’s Weekly and 200 from other sources. The manually-created Index is predicated solely on Nast’s output. It includes Nast’s Life and Work; Topics/Issues and People/Characters. You can view the entire Index on ThomasNast.com. Harpweek (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert Dorsey Coale

Do you mean “psychics faculty” or “physics faculty”? Mccapra (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Physics faculty SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SuperSkaterDude45. Thank you for your work on Hilário Maximiniano Antunes Gurjão. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Hunter × Hunter characters

Hi,

The reason I simply reverted instead of going to a talk page was that I'm really not sure what else to say to justify my edits. If anything, I'd really like to hear your justification for adding a ruby field to the nihongo template when it's the regular reading anyway.

I can kinda/sorta understand that you'd specify the reading when it's completely irregular / made-up by the author (for example, "絶対時間", which should normally be read as "Zettai Jikan", but is given the reading "エンペラータイム" / "Enperā Taimu"). I say "kinda/sorta" because it seems to me that information is already adequately conveyed by the Romaji field of the nihongo template without the need for a ruby field on top of that, but at the same time, there would be examples like "百万回生きた猫", where the romaji field alone wouldn't tell you that the "Neko no Namae" reading is spelled in katakana ("ネコノナマエ"), i.e. cases where the ruby field does provide complementary information. So I'm not fundamentally opposed to adding ruby fields there.

But "針人間", "天空闘技場" and "竜巻独楽" are another matter. The readings of those terms are nothing unusual, and it's absolutely not common practice to add a ruby field in cases like that on Wikipedia. Why would it be?

Case in point, just in that same article, you won't find ruby fields for "ジャジャン拳", "クルタ族", "幻影旅団", "蜘蛛", "流星街", "念糸縫合", "蛇咬の舞", "摂食交配", "女王", "王", "神の共犯者", "オルソ兄弟", "ハンター協会", "心源流", "貧者の薔薇", "十二支ん", "守護霊獣" or "目玉ジャクシ". How are "針人間", "天空闘技場" and "竜巻独楽" any different, according to you? What's your rationale for reverting those changes, exactly?

(And I see you've also reverted my edit regarding "オーラ合成", despite the fact that one clearly was an error: the ruby field is empty!)

(Also also:

"I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of List of Hunter × Hunter characters several times"

Not "several times", no. Just the once: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hunter_%C3%97_Hunter_characters&oldid=1122707503 . Seems a bit premature for an edit war warning, especially considering I had done more to explain myself than you have, even after your second revert...) 89.159.251.169 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@89.159.251.169: The only real reason I've reverted your edits was because your edit summaries only consist of "They're so obviously pointless" with no further rationale and given that other similar edit summaries tend to remove content for no reason and these tend to get into edit wars pretty quickly and before you ask, yes, 2 edits can count as edit warring regardless. Had you simply clarified your rationale in my talk page earlier, I would've been more understanding of your point of view. I will say though that this point: and it's absolutely not common practice to add a ruby field in cases like that on Wikipedia. Why would it be? Ruby fields are still used on Wikipedia articles with a direct list of articles who use them here so I really don't know what you're attempting to prove by that point.

Overall though, I'm not the original user who inserted the ruby fields and unfortunately, I don't really have all the time in the world to check on who actually did it nor do I know the most about this. You'll have to consult another user who is more experienced on ruby characters on Nihongo templates. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The only real reason I've reverted your edits was because your edit summaries only consist of "They're so obviously pointless" with no further rationale

The first time around, I only said "Unnecessary", but I did provide further rationale with my other edits. And as noted above, that's more than you've ever done on your end.

before you ask, yes, 2 edits can count as edit warring regardless

I wasn't going to ask, and my point above remains: you said I reverted the article to restore my preferred version several times, when I only did so once.

I will say though that this point: and it's absolutely not common practice to add a ruby field in cases like that on Wikipedia. Why would it be? Ruby fields are still used on Wikipedia articles with a direct list of articles who use them here so I really don't know what you're attempting to prove by that point.

You missed my point. I didn't say that ruby fields were never used on Wikipedia. I said that it wasn't common practice to use ruby fields when there's nothing unusual about the reading of the Japanese term. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Ruby

Out of courtesy, I will ask again: can you actually justify reverting my edits? Can you actually explain why you think adding ruby fields for "針人間", "天空闘技場" and "竜巻独楽" is pertinent? If you can't, I see no reason not to edit the article again. 89.159.251.169 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@89.159.251.169: The first time around, I only said "Unnecessary", but I did provide further rationale with my other edits. And as noted above, that's more than you've ever done on your end. I really don't think your second edit summary of an additional 4 words from your previous edit summary counts as "further rationale". Notice how you only got to talk because I had to warn you over edit warring as you've outright admitted you wouldn't have took to a talk page in your first comment on my talk. I said that it wasn't common practice to use ruby fields when there's nothing unusual about the reading of the Japanese term given all 3 of your examples typically consist of logographic characters, ruby characters can be used as pronunciation reference. By the way, the MOS you've provided only mentions that ruby characters should only be used if either the article is about ruby characters or are absolutely required. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

how you only got to talk because I had to warn you over edit warring

Whether you truly "had to" warn me is still debatable (I take it you simply refuse to even acknowledge that it was inaccurate to claim that I had reverted to restore my preferred version of the article "several times")...

And again, I did explain myself before that in my edit comments: the ruby field is unnecessary because it's the regular reading of those words. I honestly thought (and still think) that those comments should be sufficient for anybody somewhat familiar with the Japanese language and the way the nihongo template is used on Wikipedia. At this point, it would appear you are out of your depth. Note that I don't mean that as a slight at all (I wouldn't call that "common knowledge"), but it certainly makes your stubbornness regarding this particular matter quite puzzling.

given all 3 of your examples typically consist of logographic characters, ruby characters can be used as pronunciation reference. By the way, the MOS you've provided only mentions that ruby characters should only be used if either the article is about ruby characters or are absolutely required.

Frankly, it is amazing to me that you typed that second sentence without realizing what it meant for the first one. What additional information does the ruby field provide over the romaji field, here? How is the ruby field "absolutely required", for those three words?

You still haven't provided any justification whatsoever for your reverts, you are not being reasonable, and the way I see it, if you truly cared about the quality of the article, you would have fixed the "オーラ合成" formatting error you reinstated with your latest revert, at the very least. "Unconstructive" indeed, the irony is pungent.

As explained above, I see no reason not to edit the article back, at this point.... but I suspect you would be willing to waste more of your (and my) time and energy over this, so let's put the matter to rest by asking people who should know how the nihongo template is meant to be used for their input, I guess... 89.159.251.169 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@89.159.251.169: Whether you truly "had to" warn me is still debatable (I take it you simply refuse to even acknowledge that it was inaccurate to claim that I had reverted to restore my preferred version of the article "several times")... You see, the text used within the warn was part of the text of the {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} template and I would've specified the exact number if I could. How is the ruby field "absolutely required", for those three words? You yourself have stated that since you've cited the MOS so again, I really don't understand your argument. I'm not going to address everything in this comment given that you're repeating the same arguments as you did in your second reply that I've already addressed... only with more accusations and insults this time but regardless, I agree that this is going nowhere at all. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would've specified the exact number if I could.

Alternatively, you could have waited until I reverted several times before posting a warning meant for editors who have reverted several times.

You yourself have stated that since you've cited the MOS so again, I really don't understand your argument.

"the MOS you've provided only mentions that ruby characters should only be used if either the article is about ruby characters or are absolutely required." You have typed that yourself. So let's see.

1) Is the article about ruby characters? No, it's not.

We're thus left with 2) are ruby characters absolutely required, for those three terms? That's what I asked you (again), and you apparently have no answer (again).

It's really not complicated. Sorry, but yes, at this point, I find it hard to believe you are not being deliberately obtuse. 89.159.251.169 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@89.159.251.169: Alternatively, you could have waited until I reverted several times before posting a warning meant for editors who have reverted several times. Do you realize how unreasonable this sounds? The very fact you're encouraging to edit war doesn't really sound good on your end. That's what I asked you (again), and you apparently have no answer (again). If you've actually read my previous replies, you can see that I've already explained in the following: given all 3 of your examples typically consist of logographic characters, ruby characters can be used as pronunciation reference. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize how unreasonable this sounds?

I guess not. Please tell me how unreasonable it is to not treat someone like they've done something wrong until they've done something wrong. I will be right here, watching Minority Report and eating popcorn.

If you've actually read my previous replies, you can see that I've already explained in the following: given all 3 of your examples typically consist of logographic characters, ruby characters can be used as pronunciation reference.

And if you paid attention, you should know I replied this: "What additional information does the ruby field provide over the romaji field, here? How is the ruby field "absolutely required", for those three words?" Because the romaji field already tells you what the reading is, which makes the ruby field redudant, i.e. decidedly not "absolutely required". 89.159.251.169 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@89.159.251.169: Please tell me how unreasonable it is to not treat someone like they've done something wrong until they've done something wrong. Ah yes, because admitting that you would've continued with an edit war as well as previously admitting that you wouldn't have taken this to a talk page had I not warned you again, really doesn't look good on your end. Not to mention that edit summaries aren't a substitute for going on an article talk page. What additional information does the ruby field provide over the romaji field, here? How is the ruby field "absolutely required", for those three words? You do realize that there are ruby fields used for three character words in other articles, correct? Unless there's some hidden MOS somewhere that strictly dictates that single words shouldn't have ruby fields, again I don't see the point. Overall, you're clearly just here to waste my time and just repeat the same arguments that I've already addressed so unless you bring an actually new argument, I see no reason to continue discussing this with you. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

because admitting that you would've continued with an edit war as well as previously admitting that you wouldn't have taken this to a talk page had I not warned you again

Sweet baby Jesus.

When I said "alternatively, you could have waited until I reverted several times before posting a warning meant for editors who have reverted several times", I wasn't saying that I was planning to revert again and again and start an edit war. My point was that you shouldn't send warnings meant for editors who have reverted several times to editors who haven't. You should wait to see if they revert several times. And if they do, then you can go ahead and tell them "uh-oh, I see you've reverted several times! let's not start an edit war, m'kay?".

You do realize that there are ruby fields used for three character words in other articles, correct?

... What is this, now? "Three character words"? Since when is the number of characters even relevant?

Unless there's some hidden MOS somewhere that strictly dictates that single words shouldn't have ruby fields, again I don't see the point.

Sweet baby Jesus on a pogo stick.

Again, you typed this yourself: "the MOS you've provided only mentions that ruby characters should only be used if either the article is about ruby characters or are absolutely required."

1) Is the article about ruby characters? No, it's not.

2) Are ruby characters absolutely necessary for "針人間", "天空闘技場" and "竜巻独楽"? No, they're not. "They can be used as pronunciation reference", you say. Sure. But the romaji field already takes care of that, so a ruby field on top of that would be redundant, i.e. not "absolutely required".

Therefore, according to the Manual of Style, ruby characters shouldn't be used for those terms.

And yes, I am repeating myself, because no, you are not addressing my arguments.

Aaanyway. My post over there has only received one reply (so far?), but it's one that agrees with me: ruby characters are utterly unnecessary for those terms. I am editing the article accordingly (and fixing that formatting error you've reinstated with your last revert). Please don't edit war over this, your time and energy would be better spent elsewhere.

(It could have been as simple as saying "my bad, I don't know much about the nihongo template, and I guess I shouldn't have intervened"!) 89.159.251.169 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)