User talk:Nimuda

Hello, Nimuda, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Big Bertha (lunar sample) has been accepted

Big Bertha (lunar sample), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hong Soo-ah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Nimuda, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Space Shuttle Columbia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of debunking of Ferrell in Douglas MacArthur

Hi, I removed your recent addition to Douglas MacArthur, regarding the debunking of the criticism of Robert H. Ferrell. The reason I removed the added passage is because there was no mention of the criticism in the article in the first place, so there was no need to preemptively debunk arguments that weren't there. Additionally, the added text uses words like "... in fact, ...", but the so-called facts were just statements made by the reviewer of Ferrell's book in the April 2009 Army Magazine you provided as a source. Thus, the text you added violates WP:NPOV with regards to the source citation. A more objective statement would be along the lines of "Ferrell criticizes MacArthur in his book [so and so], but a reviewer of his book disagrees with his criticism". But that sort of addition to the article is non-encyclodpedic, so shouldn't be there in the first place. sbb (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Sorry for screwing up on this one. I will try my best to not make this mistake again

Nimuda (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Nimuda[reply]

No worries. I believe your edit was in good-faith. It's just that 'Douglas MacArthur' is a featured article, so we need to be particularly careful and precise with our additions and citations. =) sbb (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for being a fair moderator/editor. I think it's interesting how the MacArthur article is able to use "Dugout Doug" frequently as one of his nicknames but me adding how on 29 June 1950 he actually flew to Seoul to directly do what Truman and the UN ordered him to do rather than order a low ranking subordinate to do so despite it being very dangerous and the South Korean Army front completely collapsing is "breastbeating trivia". I'm perfectly fine with the criticism and tough analysis of MacArthur's whole career. It should be balanced with the positives, though.

Nimuda (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello, just to let you know that typically most Wikipedians follow a widely accepted practice here called WP:BRD. Basically, if you make an edit and it gets reverted, and if you don't agree, you don't make the same (or similar) edit again but instead, you start a discussion on the article talk page. More often than not, the situation gets worked out. Have a nice day - wolf 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for that. And I'll do that next time. However, "breastbeating machoism" was far from my intention and I'm sorry I didn't voice my opinion on the proper channel.

Nimuda (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battles of Saratoga into Military career of George Washington. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Tinker at Battle of Midway

Hi. I reverted your edit, that added Gen. Tinker to the infobox list of commanders at the Battle of Midway. While it's true that Tinker was a general officer involved in the battle, Tinker wasn't a planner or commander of the naval operation of the Battle of Midway, which the article is about. He led a squadron of bombers land-based against the retreating Japanese navy, but in term of "infobox commanders of the battle", Tinker's role could have been accomplished by a colonel or even major as squadron commander. That he was a general officer doesn't elevate him to one of the commanders of the naval operation (i.e., infobox).

If you disagree with this reversion, please remember that Battle of Midway is a featured article. So additions such as you made should be brought up in the article's Talk page first. Happy editing. =) — sbb (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major General Tinker wasn't "just a general officer" though. He was a Major General (two stars) and equal with Rear Admiral Spruance and Rear Admiral Jack Fletcher (both two stars), not a Brigadier General, and he was a part of the U.S. Army Air Forces commanders. He was the Commander of the Seventh Air Force which was a major part of the Battle of Midway. If he were a brigadier general then you would be correct and I would not have placed him in the infobox. A unique part of the Battle of Midway was the land-based Army fighters and bombers were a crucial part of the battle, not just Navy carrier aircraft. If Navy rear admirals (two stars) get partial credit for General Douglas MacArthur's Southwest Pacific theater operations and battles then an Army major general should get credit for being the commander of land-based aircraft during the Battle of Midway especially since Nimitz had the Army airplanes in mind as a major component of the battle. And couldn't a bunch of lower-ranking Captains and Commanders do the same exact thing as Spruance and Fletcher with their aircraft carriers, if that is your argument? Those two rear admirals did not have to be actually present at the battle and could have stayed behind in Pearl Harbor with Admiral Nimitz with that same logic. Nimuda (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans - British withdrawal

Hello, I put the tag there because it is dubious to base an event in January upon a document signed on another continent the prior month. Rather than deleting the comment, it would make sense to find a better source, and to replace the tag and the Treaty of Ghent. Please do feel free to add a better source, ideally from a book published by a historian, rather than someone's self-published website.Keith H99 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Ghent was signed but not ratified until February 1815. The Senate has to ratify treaties in the U.S.A. Signatures by low-ranking diplomats mean absolutely nothing to the American government. And despite the claims from the British after the war (that was really a "face saving" narrative) by claiming that New Orleans did not count as a real battle of the war General Pakenham (who was killed in action so his own story and potential autobiography is conveniently lost to history) was in fact told by the British Government and his military superiors to ignore any news of a peace treaty being successfully negotiated and to continue onwards until he captures New Orleans. He had a commission from the Colonial Office in London calling him Governor of Louisiana if he had won the Battle of New Orleans. You can see Andrew Jackson's own statement in the Battle of New Orleans article. He made it known on record that if the British had taken New Orleans before the ratification of the treaty in February they would have repealed that treaty and kept Louisiana for themselves.

Nimuda (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, that Pakenham was under secret orders to take New Orleans and to declare himself the Governor of Louisiana. The Treaty of Ghent does not prove this, which is why I have marked it as dubious. It would be better if a historian, like Remini for example, who has mentioned this in a history book, could be added as a source. In this manner, the idea of wikipedia as a sourced encyclopaedia is upheld, as it ties back to a plausible source. Otherwise, the reliability comes into question, and this is best avoided.Keith H99 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the secret orders for Pakenham to take New Orleans and to declare himself the Governor of Louisiana are in a book written by Andrew Jackson, then it would be better to add that book as the source to the article. If you check a source, and it doesn't tie back, then it is logical to tag it as dubious. It is not to say that a statement is not correct, but that the source does not reflect the statement, which I believe is known in some circles as "coat racking".Keith H99 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with your sources

Hi Nimuda! I'm writing about this edit you made in 2021. I've just removed that paragraph as I can't find any information about it on the internet other than the unreliable source you cited. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing it due to no other sources confirming it. I concur with you. I like to believe that that alleged embarrassing incident in Tokyo Bay in 1943 actually happened but the U.S. Navy doesn't want to talk about it (for obvious reasons) and it "officially" never happened. Maybe it will be officially disclosed on the 100th year anniversary in 20 years.

Nimuda (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for USS Texas (BB-35)

USS Texas (BB-35) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Note: I have also requested MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]