User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 12

Raid on Drvar

Hi Mrg, please see the talkpage of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

article help

thanks for your help at United States military in Iraq. I added some new comments there, at the talk page.; just want to let you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar-free zone image

Alas, I can't take credit for it :) My wife found it in the barnstar gallery, and I'm not even sure who originally created it. However, I love the userbox you recommend :) Adding it now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Various

Seeing you at the Napoleonic Wars page reminded me that I never replied to your email those weeks ago. Apologise for my rudeness. I agree that WP has a long way to go to reach accuracy and comprehensiveness, but a little encouragement that we're on the right track is always nice. Even if it just means we're the best of a bad lot! Anyway, thanks for the encouragement with British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. It's a bit of a secondary project for me; I really started out doing 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot (which is in itself a distraction from other things: I seem to have a few too many pots on the boil) and thought there should be some more background information, so I'm afraid it'll be slower progress than I'd like. Feel free to chip in. Gwinva (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you found that, did you? HitMA is one of my pots: I'm trying to bring that to FA but got distracted. Another is Early thermal weapons, which is almost there, but has not had any input from me for a while. I like lurking on the fringes of Military History; the popular stuff is hard work: a real mess as far as prose, citations etc and far too much POV. Think WWII-stuff is bad? Look at Knight or Armour and weep. I don't know what the Nap. Wars task force is up to: some of the stuff is lacking. That British Army article should have been written years ago. Waterloo and all that, but nothing about how they actually fought it. Don't apologise for the long post: all good stuff. If you want to escape your kitchen for a while, drop in whenever you want. Gwinva (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The older articles seem the worst for citations (can you believe that once even FAs didn't need inline cites?!). The text might have started off fine, once upon a time, but every man and his dog comes along, adds a bit and so on, until the page needs scrapping rather than salvaging. No wonder Fowler's "Best military history site" made you chortle in disbelief. If this makes you feel better (!!!) Mil Hist project is respected within WP for its rigorous assessment and citation requirements!! (See any of those assessment discussions you mutter about; plus the Mil Hist citation MOS is more rigorous than many of the others). Anyway, I potter on in my own corner; you, on the other hand seem to be running a one-man campaign to straighten it all out. Well done for attempting it! Gwinva (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes,well, quite frankly I had no choice. I had not used Wikipedia until about two years ago when someone stated quoting it at me in a Yahoo group. Unfortunately due to other commitments I was unable to even start considering to edit at the time, but just watched intently. What I was not aware of is the clique formation that goes on in WP which is somewhat foreign as a concept from the commercial environment I usually operate in despite the usual politics at work.

I just had a look at the Armour article. If it is defines as "protective clothing intended to defend its wearer from intentional harm in combat and military engagements, typically associated with soldiers." then the I am proven correct for my long time assertion that tankers are the first experiment in genetically modified organisms since they wear a 60ton MBT ;) Good thing no one from the naal task force had seen the article yet, or they may reconsider using the word to describe what batteships and armoured cruisers are made from :) Than there is all that "stuff" the fighter pilots liked to have around the cockpit during the Second World War :) Has the expression "knights of the air" never crossed any editor's mind as having more then a romantic notion to it? I will deal with it when I get to cuirassiers if no one beats me to it, however it seems to me at leas the intro needs to be rewritten--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Armour

Subheadings which have little or no information underneath should not be included. This is obvious. Show me where in the Manual of Style it says that these subheadings are appropriate. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will reply in the article talk page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning on Layout

I know that you do not like the content of the guidelines WP:LAYOUT and (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings) because you have made changes to both Hundred Days and Zieten Hussars. Personally I like to put footnotes below further reading and references above, but that is not the consensus view, neither is yours, so I suggest that you campaign to change them in the guidelines and not the article pages as reverting changes away from guideline advice can be seen as disruptive.

From your last message on my talk page it is clear you are confused by WP:LAYOUT nowhere on that page does it suggest having a section entitled "Sources".

You have already raised this issued at Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Notes and references sections and been told by user:Dank55 that you are mistaken. Yet despite, I see from the history of your contributions on the 19 June 2008 that you have altered a number of pages. Stop now or I will block you account for a period of time. I am going to post a message to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrg3105 Layout, as I have been involved as an editor on two of the pages to make sure other editors do not think I am acting out of order. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the reply was

Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I start changing all 2.4 million articles?

I agree with Dank55, namely people have to learn what both sets of words mean

I note that you had not replied, but another editor did, and this should clarify to you that I am not mistaken

The list of sources is called ==References== because the editor is supposed to have referred to these sources when writing the page. As to why some editors separate the full bibliographic listing from the repeated page numbers, it appears to be a matter of personal preference. You don't have to use that style if you don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is, when all that is listed on the page is a title of a book, are you going to read the whole thing just to ensure that it actually supports what's in the article?

So far as having a section called Sources is concerned, I refer you to WP:SOURCE, so it seems that having a section called Sources, with the assist tag '''{{find}}''' is most appropriate.

I welcome your ANI as it may get more viewing then the LAYOUT talk

In any case, what are you going to block me for? Violating a style guideline?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrg3105 Layout. You have started to change articles. The name of the section References or Sources has been discussed in depth in the archives of WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE. Again before you go changing lots of pages get agreement on the guideline pages first or you will be blocked for disruption. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your depth perception may be somewhat off since so far there have been two other editors contributing to the discussion. News flash - changing articles is called editing, and that is what I'm doing. If adding sources to unsourced and unreferenced articles is disruption, then you have a weird idea of what editing is Philip--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, it is disruptive to insist on your choice of section title in an article someone else is primarily responsible for writing. Changing a few but not fighting by reverting if someone changes it back is ok. Using "Source" or "Sources and notes" in an article you are primarily writing is ok too. But again, don't fight if some idiot thinks guideline=policy. Wait til they go elsewhere and then change it back. Relax. Don't fight. Wikipedia is more fun that way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your advice WAS 4.250, but Philip is here for the long run, and is not going away. My intention is to create some semblance of consistency in article presentation. Besides that I do new article patrols, so its much easier to slap the five sections on it as a guide for its author to follow, never mind to use the find feature in Sources as a hint that I do not want to slap a missing references and citation on their brand new article instead. As I see it, I'm just trying to help prevent a creation of another unreferenced stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "(Undid revision 220581669 by WAS 4.250 please participate in Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Notes_and_references_sections)" in your edit summary. I made changes that I believe make it better and to show you how I would do it. But I agree with you that your "version is not beyond common sense as the guideline says" so I won't fight about it. My time is worth more to me than wasting it on minor matters like that. It is fun for me to make minor changes that make things better. But not fun for me to fight over them. Perhaps you have a different idea of fun. Good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

48 hours for [1], which is blockable per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, the remedies of which you are subject to. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your view wanted

When you're back, if you would take a look at the Template:Tmbox proposal, I'd appreciate it. I've listed my (weak) concerns on its talk page, but would be happy to hear from someone more sensitive to visibility issues than me. Thanks, (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to emal you regarding your comments on the layout talk, for which I'm grateful because at least even if you don't agree with me, you have taken the time to put it all in writing. Do you mind if I do that? I will have a look at the templates. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, im back, for List of naval air arm engagements do we need to create a draft?--EZ1234 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back EZ1234. Do you have a draft suggestion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should set out the list like this

• Battle of Makassar Strait
  • 4 February 1942
  • Some brief info

Is that alright?, if you have another idea im all ears. Should we set it out by timeline or campaigns and regions?--EZ1234 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Given they are naval, how about the list be broken up into sections by ocean, and then by seas? The next column can be the date, then the name of the engagement, then the units involved, and end with notations on the actual engagement--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. I just realized that there would be hundreds of naval air arm engagements, I think we should name the article List of major naval air arm engagementsEZ1234 (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a sandbox on my userpage. Does a naval arm air engagment only include aircrafts on one side and naval units on the other?--EZ1234 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1917-1957

Because they were active within the 1917-57 time period!! Anyway, please make your comments either at the main talk page, where I've raised this issue, or on the talk page; let's stop edit warring. Buckshot06(prof) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked before why you created two lists for covering same period. It seems to me they units that were primarily created for the war, and ended their existence after it ended. So why have then in a period ending 1957?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you never see the discussion over the page's size? The infantry divisions pages is over 150k, and the original page is over 50k. W.B. Wilson and I discussed it - you'll see the links in the merger proposal section I've established in response to your banner - and decided infantry was the best one to split out. I think I've already said I chose to extend the date to 1957 so it would end with the introduction of Motor Rifle formations. Thus, if it's an infantry division of the Soviet Union between those dates, ipso facto, it has a place on that page. Buckshot06(prof) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I really appreciate your work on the divisions. However, what you really need is multiple lists because the subject area is too large. There were not 400 infantry divisions created during the Second World World War, but many more. fully 50% of the pre-war divisions were reformed as 2nd formation, and many as 3rd. I guess you are going to think I'm being overbearing again, but I am going to suggest to you that what you need to do is write an article on types of divisions in the Red Army, and have in-article links to each division-type list. I will help you to expand the article, if you need my help, but this would be an article and not a list, preferable showing development from after the Civil War to creation of the the Soviet Army in 1947, which was a fundamental change. The lists are, I am sad to say again, not all that helpful. If a division of the 2nd formation needs to be mentioned in an operation article, it will invariably link to a division number entry, which operated elsewhere, or was even disbanded, so will only confuse the reader. I tried to point this out to you before, but you seem to just discard anything I say, maybe due to my insistence on using Russian sources that you can't verify. I appreciate this, and Roger has raised the issue, but fundamentally, as evidenced by Glantz's research done on German and Soviet archives, the Russian sources are not wrong, just "coloured" in the political overtones of the Soviet era, as was the US literature. In any case, think it over.

I wish you would appreciate that I am fairly dedicated to study of military history over 25 years, and do not have political or ethnic agendas in my contributions. I think that recent conflicts between us are fruitless an do not in the end contribute to productive participation in Wikipedia, so I ma just not going to participate in them. I don't know what you want an apology for (already said I regret using the f*** word), but from where I see it you are just out for revenge, despite my good advice.

I think there are fundamental and systemic problems in Wikipedia that need to be fixed. These issues impact on the acceptance of Wikipedia as an authoritative reference source, and primarily have to do with the ability of editors to support their articles and their continued editing. It is the reason articles are so unstable and can not be taken to FA easily. Excellence in referencing and sourcing supporting materials is something that was drummed into me at the university, and I am completely committed to this. Ideas can not be invented without a logical sequence of evidence being offered.If you agree with me on this, I guarantee there will never be another conflict between us. If you don't, then we will repeatedly meet in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WARNING:If using Firefox 3 with Vista

There is a serious bug if you use FF 3 with Vista. Please see this link - Talk:Mozilla_Firefox#WARNING:Vista_users_and_Firefox_3 Kathleen.wright5 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk - Battle in Berlin

Not sure whether you meant to, but you removed my talkpage contributions. Was that a mistake? Buckshot06(prof) 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)