User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2013/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ErrantX. 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. |
Problems with Buckshot06
I'm having problems with the editing style of Buckshot06, I've had two articles clumsily cut & pasted by him without him even bothering to ask for my input. I know it sounds 'old fashioned' but when you've spent time researching material and writing an article to see it so cavalierly treated is just galling.
I've tried to keep you abrest of what I'm doing so that you can plan around it. I've left him a message on his talk page and I'm hoping he'll have the decency to respond.Graham1973 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- What's this 'problem'? Every edit box carries the legend 'Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.' Graham1973 has upset the military-units-and-formations applecart by creating a whole string of articles for formations that did not exist. These appear in categories and elsewhere as 'real' formations and are potentially incredibly confusing. They cannot be listed in the encyclopedia as if they were 'real' units. I'm in the process of upmerging his and other well-meaning contributors' articles about deception formations to articles that make more sense (see British deception formations in World War II, for example). In addition, these are *not* 'cut-and-paste'; they're properly formed redirects, with page history preserved. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You might also be interested in this; User:ErrantX/Sandbox/List of Allied fictional units during World War II, a work in progress that Graham and I have been filling in (it might need splitting, but this was a good place to start). You make a good argument r.e. appearing in "real" categories, I suggest the solution there is to use "non-real" categories. Some of these articles may be too short, enough to warrant a merge. But I suspect some will be lengthy enough to be standalone. --Errant (chat!) 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and I've also seen the 'fictional' category. I think the use of the word 'fictional' is highly misleading; fiction has produced many many units 'notable' by wikipedia standards because of repeated references. 'Deception' is a far better term, and I suggest we move the category and other uses of that word there. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that works; because "deception units" could be real units doing deception, or entirely fictional formations (as many of them were). Besides, every source I have seen refers to these are "fictional" or "notional" formations. And I don't see how a difference in term makes each one more or less notable :) Many of these formations I will agree do not warrant single line articles, and should be an entry in the list. But a few do have a reasonable amount of notability. --Errant (chat!) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- good point, they could indeed be real. But you see my problem with fictional. How about 'notional' - that portrays the meaning quite well. I agree some formations may be notable; I think FUSAG's article can be retained. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here is another one, have you wondered why the last real Corps activated by the US Army in WWII was the XXXVI (36th) Corps, it was because the numbers around it had been allocated for deceptive purposes. The articles were placed as they were to make this readily apparent to a casual reader. Same with the divisions. For example there is no connection between the fictional 48th infantry division and the post war formation. Ditto the 11th infantry divison. I'm now going to have to rewrite your hackwork on the 11th, so that it flows coherently, something you could not seem to be bothered to do yourself.Graham1973 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have a real problem understanding why you believe some of what you are saying. There is 'no connection' between the fictional 48th and the real 48th - except the fact that they *have the same name*!! That would indicate that there is a connection, at least in my terms. Now, I have repeated several times above that *categories* are the most pressing problem, not articles? - have I not made myself sufficiently clear? THESE FORMATIONS DID NOT EXIST !! THE *ACTUAL* personnel THAT MADE THEM UP WERE PEOPLE LIKE THE 2nd Special Service Signal Battalion AND Task Force 'B' ETC. IF YOU PLACE CATEGORIES SUCH AS Category:Corps of the United States Army on them, they appear as real and they ruin the correct numbers of articles in these categories, as well. Finally, obviously we differ on the quality of my writing. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to move this discussion to a central location (possibly WT:MILHIST) so more editors can comment. I tend to agree that the use of infoboxes and the like in these articles is likely to confuse readers, and I'm not sure that all these fictional divisions are individually notable; it seems better to discuss the schemes for which these 'units' were developed for, and the ways in which the Allied deception experts portrayed them rather than present them with infoboxes, etc, which could lead casual readers to conclude that there was something to these units, when if fact they never existed. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the discussion being moved. However I continue to have a problem with Buckshot06's lack of courtesy. A simple message to either mine or ErrantXs talk page asking to discuss the edits before they were made would have allowed them to be planned for and allowed us to avoid this entire discussion.Graham1973 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- 95% of the articles I usually work with attract virtually no attention from anyone. The small community of experts working on military units and formations struggle repeatedly to attract outside attention from other editors when they really need it, let alone in the general course of events. Thus I work in accordance with WP:BOLD, because as users such as User:Lineagegeek find, or the discussion over the merge of the Cyprus SBAs shows, if you wait for comments you'll be waiting for ever. When people are interested, WP:BOLD can be succeeded in some cases by WP:BRD, which is exactly what's happening here. When talkpage discussion on one user's page is insufficient, as it seems to be the case here, it is usually moved to a more frequently commented upon page, like a project talk page. Depending on the particular situation, this can take a shorter or a longer period of time. Thus I don't think this discussion is developing in a way sharply different from the normal dispute resolution process. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the discussion being moved. However I continue to have a problem with Buckshot06's lack of courtesy. A simple message to either mine or ErrantXs talk page asking to discuss the edits before they were made would have allowed them to be planned for and allowed us to avoid this entire discussion.Graham1973 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to move this discussion to a central location (possibly WT:MILHIST) so more editors can comment. I tend to agree that the use of infoboxes and the like in these articles is likely to confuse readers, and I'm not sure that all these fictional divisions are individually notable; it seems better to discuss the schemes for which these 'units' were developed for, and the ways in which the Allied deception experts portrayed them rather than present them with infoboxes, etc, which could lead casual readers to conclude that there was something to these units, when if fact they never existed. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have a real problem understanding why you believe some of what you are saying. There is 'no connection' between the fictional 48th and the real 48th - except the fact that they *have the same name*!! That would indicate that there is a connection, at least in my terms. Now, I have repeated several times above that *categories* are the most pressing problem, not articles? - have I not made myself sufficiently clear? THESE FORMATIONS DID NOT EXIST !! THE *ACTUAL* personnel THAT MADE THEM UP WERE PEOPLE LIKE THE 2nd Special Service Signal Battalion AND Task Force 'B' ETC. IF YOU PLACE CATEGORIES SUCH AS Category:Corps of the United States Army on them, they appear as real and they ruin the correct numbers of articles in these categories, as well. Finally, obviously we differ on the quality of my writing. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here is another one, have you wondered why the last real Corps activated by the US Army in WWII was the XXXVI (36th) Corps, it was because the numbers around it had been allocated for deceptive purposes. The articles were placed as they were to make this readily apparent to a casual reader. Same with the divisions. For example there is no connection between the fictional 48th infantry division and the post war formation. Ditto the 11th infantry divison. I'm now going to have to rewrite your hackwork on the 11th, so that it flows coherently, something you could not seem to be bothered to do yourself.Graham1973 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- good point, they could indeed be real. But you see my problem with fictional. How about 'notional' - that portrays the meaning quite well. I agree some formations may be notable; I think FUSAG's article can be retained. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that works; because "deception units" could be real units doing deception, or entirely fictional formations (as many of them were). Besides, every source I have seen refers to these are "fictional" or "notional" formations. And I don't see how a difference in term makes each one more or less notable :) Many of these formations I will agree do not warrant single line articles, and should be an entry in the list. But a few do have a reasonable amount of notability. --Errant (chat!) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and I've also seen the 'fictional' category. I think the use of the word 'fictional' is highly misleading; fiction has produced many many units 'notable' by wikipedia standards because of repeated references. 'Deception' is a far better term, and I suggest we move the category and other uses of that word there. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might also be interested in this; User:ErrantX/Sandbox/List of Allied fictional units during World War II, a work in progress that Graham and I have been filling in (it might need splitting, but this was a good place to start). You make a good argument r.e. appearing in "real" categories, I suggest the solution there is to use "non-real" categories. Some of these articles may be too short, enough to warrant a merge. But I suspect some will be lengthy enough to be standalone. --Errant (chat!) 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a head's up, this is being reviewed now and there are a couple issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
- Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles
- News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun
- Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
- In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
- Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
Please comment on User talk:CoolingGibbon
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:CoolingGibbon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Camouflage and its FAC page --- needing a hand ...
Hi ErrantX, I'm thinking of going for FA with the Camouflage article which is I think now pretty complete. I've read the criteria and the one that gives me grief is "consistent references". I have refs to books, papers, and websites. The books I have listed separately; the others seem best just embedded in the refs themselves, which I see is done even in FA Napoleon, quite discreetly. What do you think? I can imagine getting some stick for it, but the alternatives seem pretty messy also. Any ideas? And is the article more or less ready, do you imagine? Any hints would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks great... I'd nominate it and see what comments you get, that's the only way to be sure! But I reckon you'll be fine, especially with prior art. --Errant (chat!) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- [feeling bruised all over...] Hi ErrantX, have radically cut down images, tweaked dozens of refs, and am still in deep water with the FAC. Nikkimaria has offered to help with ref formatting (my goodness I'm all fingers and thumbs at that), but apparently there are heaps of (I'd think small) MOS things that need sorting - like PERCENT and SEEALSO and who knows what else. I'll fix what I can understand, but if you could pop round and see what needs done and maybe do a bit it would be hugely appreciated, I felt a bit lost and lonely in FAC today after the warm friendly fields of GAN. All the best -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 February 2013
- WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines
- Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit
- In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press
- Featured content: Featured content gets schooled
Review
Hi! I have begun a good article review of your article Operation Copperhead, an area of significant personal interest. You can address my comments at the review page, thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Aloha, I just passed your article. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Operation Copperhead
 | On 23 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Copperhead, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Operation Copperhead saw M. E. Clifton James posing as Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery in the build up to D-Day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Copperhead. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nice article, thanks. Any reason why James as Montgomery sports only one cap badge? Ericoides (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No idea! Not noticed that before. I'll have read through the sources and see if they mention anything. --Errant (chat!) 12:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's odd, as wearing two badges was one of Monty's trademarks. In this poster for the film he wears two badges, as he does in this picture and this one. I think a comment under our picture in the article should say something to the effect that he wasn't going to fool anyone with just the one badge.Ericoides (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No idea! Not noticed that before. I'll have read through the sources and see if they mention anything. --Errant (chat!) 12:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Objection to CommonsNotificationBot
This is supposedly the talk page of CommonsNotificationBot. I object to this bot, which apparently attempts to force WP editors to delete perfectly legal images without first researching whether the images are under current and defended copyright. If the motivation for such actions is concern for copyright holders, there is already a policy to respond to copyright violation notices from copyright owners. This bot is unnecessary and makes WP poorer by its operation. A specific example of a bot notice is at Talk:Billie Burke. David Spector (user/talk) 20:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi David. The bot has not operated for some time. It's purpose was not to nominate files for deletion, but to notify people on Wikipedia when files on Wikimedia Commons were nominated (by others) for deletion. Usually this did not happen, so files would disappear with no warning. But, as I said, the bot has not run for some time. --Errant (chat!) 20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)