User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 13

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Come on Mrg3105...you got your demand, the article was renamed. Reaching the necessary consensus for that article to be renamed required a lot of good will from the other editors. They could have driven this to a non-consensus or a stalemate very easily.

Now, that sarcastic comment is totally unneeded and it will only anger Nick Dowling.

It would way better if you wrote something acknowledging that Nick Dowling's and Buckshot06's support was vital and that you are thankful that the big change you requested got through. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Leningrad & Moscow war-raised divisions of volunteers

(Managed not to use either title!). Would you mind sourcing the section that you added, whatever we decide on finally for the name? It looks a bit bad with all the other sections heavily footnoted and sourced, but that not having a single ref or bibliographical reference. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32 teeth

Feel free to put that back in, I was only definately sure about the irrelevancy of a 32-bit doubleword in computing being related in any way. There may be a relation with teeth I don't know about, but it seemed to be out of place trivia. There's no dire need for a citation, but putting it in context would be good. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on 13th Army Band and 13th army band articles

I was doing some work for the WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup, and the first articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2008 were these 2 articles. I added some citations to 13th Army Band and its talk page was a redirect to Talk:13th army band. The 2 articles 13th Army Band and 13th army band appear to be separate identical articles. Their history says that you did a move but it looks somehow like a copy. Shouldn't there be a redirect in place for one of the spellings and not 2 separate articles? Didn't want to do anything in case there was some other purpose that is not obvious to me. Cheers. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civil

I am merely asking you to remain civil and not insult people, either directly, or indirectly, by mocking the terms they use. Buckshot06(prof) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That presupposes (by you) that I was insulting anyone. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of approach to citing guidelines--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Thanks for the note. I had a look, but I don't feel I know enough about the subject either way to pass judgement on the article name. Sorry I'm not much help! :) Gwinva (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

85mm divisional gun D-44

Thanks for your assist with this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and so

Hi. After our little exchange at Gematria I noticed that {{find}} was being used well outside its specified usage. I therefore removed it from quite a few pages. Within minutes it became clear that almost all these pages are about military history, and it turns out that you were generally the editor to add this template. I therefore thought that I should drop a note to clarify my edits.

Tight integration between Wikipedia and Google would be nice, and I have previously encouraged editors to either write their own monobook.js extension to plug Google functionality, or alternatively to file a Bugzilla report. Of course it would be ideal if you could tap into Google for sources after reading an encyclopedia article.

At the same time, I don't think {{find}} should be added to any article pages at present, or only on designated bio-stubs. The reasons are: (1) it suggests Google will answer any remaining questions (usually "no" if the encyclopedia article is well-written), (2) it is a tool for editors, not for readers and should therefore be on the talkpage.

I will not remove the template from any more pages until I have your views, but at the same time I expect you not to undo my actions until you have responded. We can discuss matters here or on Template talk:Findsources if you find that more appropriate. JFW | T@lk 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly satisfied with your response.[1] You really should have awaited some form of consensus before reinserting your templates. I am also less than delighted with your personal attack referring to my 4 year editing history. Surely that should have been an indicator to you that I am an experienced editor (for the record, your first registered edit was on 4 November 2006) and that it might be inappropriate to throw me insults.

By extension of your logic, almost every single page should have the template, because apart from our featured articles, every article is by definition a work in progress. To put such templates in the article namespace for your convenience (to avoid you having to open extra windows) really does not displace my arguments above in the slightest. Much more consensus is needed for its use before applying the template for such a use all over the project. Other solutions (e.g. a monobook.js extension or a plugin) might be much more useful. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are overly sensitive. I expressed surprise, and I wonder how surprise can be interpreted as an attack. I don't need a consensus because I did as I was asked, and re-read the conditions of use of the template as advised by you. I found no statements of restriction as you suggested. What would you say that's called, deceptions, insult to my intelligence? I am simply adopting an existing tool for another use, a practice well establish in human behaviour as being normal, and far from aggressive, usually considered creative.

It doesn't really matter how long anyone has been editing, does it? It only matters that the editor contributes productively and with the intention of improving Wikipedia in mind. Having the findsources template in articles assists in improving Wikipedia, not having it does not.

You are quire correct. Any article that has any statements or claims made which need to be cited, needs the encouragement of other editors to provide such citations. Have you seen what happens to FA articles while they go through approval? Citing references is the single most common issue, and cause of disputes in Wikipedia. I am simply taking a note from the discipline of medicine and suggesting that prevention is better than the cure.

So far I have not seen any suggestions for other solutions to combat gross lack of references in articles, and certainly no constructive action to do anything about it. If you think that you can offer such solutions, you are welcome to propose them here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know jolly well what happens to a FAC. I happen to be involved in one at the moment; I am not having any referencing problems there, but that aside. For the FAC process, it would be nice to have a nice tool to quickly find websites (which is not identical to "sources"), but not to the point that you should put a template into the article namespace. You have not addressed my point that by extension of your logic, every single page ought to be bearing the template, and that therefore a script or extension would be more suitable and less obtrusive to editors who don't care for it. References are found by someone with a command of the relevant literature finding the most appropriate source, not by someone pushing a button to Google.

I am basing my statements on the use of {{find}} on the text of Template:Findsources/doc ("This template is primarily useful for finding sources for stub articles, or in deletion discussions.") and Template talk:Findsources ("Please be more careful with this template; it is an AfD and bio-stub tool"). I think that is fairly unambiguous. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mrg3105, I created the find template, and it shouldn't be used in articles - have a look at number 9 on this list.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the never ending vandalism on the heterosexuality article. Caden S (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Atlantic, again

You really want to do this again?
What on earth gave you the idea that you you had the right to make a unilateral change to the opening sentence when this has been a bone of contention for months? I’ve put it back in again; if you have anything to say about it take it to the talk page; I have. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Venus and mars symbols

They represent the planets Venus and Mars (as well as copper and iron, and male and female), but there's no evidence I'm aware of that these symbols were used in ancient Roman times, or have a particularly close association with the mythological deities Venus and Mars. These symbols likely originated from the astrology-astronomy (not always clearly distinguished) and alchemy of the Middle Ages, and owe their modern sexual use much more to notational practices in the field of botany than to ancient mythologies... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever decide to write to anyone on any topic of editing articles in Wikipedia, and find yourself using words like maybe, likely or "I suppose", just don't write, but go out there and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL the reference that will support your no doubt good attempted guess and then cite it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the one who is advocating a non-standard (some might say eccentric) view, and adding disputed material to an article, the burden of sourcing would appear to be on you. Furthermore, some of my hedging in the above remarks was due to the fact that the exact origin of the planet-gender symbols is in fact not known with any certainty. However, the general historical context from which these symbols emerged is known -- and this context was not ancient polytheism... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]