Deletion review for Geoffrey BootEdit

User:Miraclepine has asked for a deletion review of Geoffrey Boot. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cryptic, replied over there. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020Edit

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for HMS Levant (1758), about an "eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with a solid record as a hunter of French, Spanish and American privateers. Launched in 1758 and in service during both the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, defeating a total of 24 enemy vessels."! - We have a featured topic to review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to ARBPIA topic banEdit

User:Euryalus, shalom. I have submitted an appeal to my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. The procedure requires of me to inform the one who imposed the topic ban, and Administrator Ed Johnston thought that you should also be informed.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Davidbena: thanks for the message. I'm kind of away from Wikipedia (this = my first edit in six months), so don't really have anything to add. Sorry about that, and all the best with the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

HMS Levant (1758) scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the HMS Levant (1758) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 6, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about this article so it's nice to be reminded of it. It's had one notable content addition since I worked in it, which probably needs slightly more detailed referencing - I've asked the editor who added it for that additional detail and hopefully they'll provide it before this is scheduled to appear. Depending on that material there may need to be a change to the blurb - if these additional victories were merely unarmed merchantmen then the blurb is fine, but if they were combat vessels in any form then the vessel's total number of victories is wrong. I suspect the former is true but I don't have any record of these at all so it will be up to the editor who added them to link or further interpret their source. - Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Submitting an appeal to my Topic Ban in the ARBPIA areaEdit

This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted sn appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. I was asked by the administrator EdJohnston to inform the previous administrators involved in my earlier topic bans when submitting a new appeal, which I take the time to do now. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: thanks, have commented in that thread (as an editor not administrator). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back!Edit

Welcome back! Was nice to see your name around again! Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thanks, and welcome back to you too. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-applying for template editor rightsEdit

Hello Euryalus (talk), I have a couple of questions: first, how would I need to demonstrate that I have gained sufficient practice in using the sandboxes for protected modules in order to re-gain my template editor rights? Second, how would I go about re-applying for template editor rights? Could you also explain to Eagles247 that I'm sorry for consistently changing the color codes over at Module:Gridiron color/data? Clearly, I didn't completely read through WP:TPE before I was granted template editor rights in the first place. However, now that I don't have them, I will use the one-to-two month period to read through and become familiar with WP:TPE and then use the sandboxes before editing any protected modules in the future, should I be re-granted template editor rights again. Is that what I would need to do, or is there other requirements I would need to meet? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for message. Factual stuff first - you need to demonstrate more familiarity with sandbox use and with consensus editing. One possible example of how to do this would be that if you see an edit you think needs making to a template, design it in a sandbox and get other editor's views on whether it needs doing. That's just an example, you could no doubt think of other options. The point is a few examples like this would probably show both sets of skills and get your reapplication approved.
Reapplying would be via the usual process at WP:PERM. I specifically didn't set a time frame so feel free to reapply whenever you think you have more evidence of the skills mentioned above. The outcome of the application will be up to whatever passing admin clears PERM requests on the day you apply.
Less factual stuff: pinging Eagles247 so they can read your comments, but feel free to contact them directly if you wish - your account isn't block so you can post on their talkpage at will. :)
And lastly, tbh I am kind of struggling with the claim that you haven't read TPE despite two years of template editing, and/or didn't understand how to use sandboxes until now. You've been an editor for years, and Levivich presents some fairly damning evidence about your past familiarity with these topics. The thread also includes numerous past admissions of poor editing and unmet promises to do better. The close gives the benefit of the doubt, and essentially proposes a pause in protected template editing to give you a chance to come up to speed. As random advice that you can take or leave as you choose: please take this pause in that spirit and really over-emphasise the sandbox/consensus aspects of template editing in future. If not it's unlikely that benefit of doubt will be extended again. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Euryalus: OK, thank you for the positive and constructive criticism. This is exactly what I was looking for. TBH, yes, I have made past admissions of poor editing and unmet promises to do better. I am working on that. Perhaps it would be in my best interests to take a wiki-break from editing for now. I usually don't have time during my weekdays and on Saturdays, seeing as how I have a real-life job and work a fixed schedule that takes me away from my laptop. What I don't know how to do or have experience with is how to edit using sandboxes, and then getting other editors' views on whether it needs doing. I struggle with collaborating with other editors, especially when it comes to disagreements on things. Could you or another editor please walk me through how to edit using sandboxes? Is there a minimum number of examples as to how many times I would need to edit a sandbox and then get other editors' to comment in order to better my chances of being re-approved for template editor rights? My experience has taught me that usually, when I seek comment from other editors, I never get it. What am I doing wrong here? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
... when I seek comment from other editors, I never get it. - that's true for everyone I think! I usually edit articles on eighteenth century navy ships, which is a topic of no great interest to anyone. So I entirely appreciate the difficulty of getting others to engage with your work. Re the above, I suppose I'd start by saying there's no deadline for most edits.If you see a template that you think eneds changing, try asking other editors in the same field if they agree, or asking at the relevant Wikiproject if there is one. Days or weeks might go by, but there'll eventually be replies and people will feel grateful they were consulted. If you can mock up the changes in a sandbox (even in your own userspace) then that might help explain what you are suggesting and make it easier to get consensus. We're also only talking protected templates here - you can demonstrate these sandbox and consensus approaches for anything else too, if you like.
Re number of examples: there isn't a specific number, just whatever you think you'll need to convince whoever happens to be staffing WP:PERM. They'll be aware of the ANI thread, so going there right now will likely get a Not done response. But otherwise, just do what you think best in familiarising yourself with these aspects of editing, and build a reasonable body of examples to show for it. Five examples? Ten? Two really great ones that just wow the umpire? Whatever. It's not a specific set of hoops to jump through, rather what you think is enough to make the case.
I should add one thing I forgot in my earlier post: treat TPE tools are like admin tools were supposed to be - no big deal and easy to gain or lose. You got them in 2018 because you felt you were familiar with how they should be used. There've been some missteps, and TPE has been temporarily removed to let you brush up on a couple of skills. If all goes well it'll be restored in due course and that will be the end of the matter. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Charlesaaronthompson, it would help if you broke out of the bubble of just tweaking/adding colours to templates - sometimes inappropriately, as I noted on your talk page. If you keep an eye on the template edit requests at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable you'll occasionally see a request which needs to be coded. That's your chance to try and solve the problem in the template's sandbox. It would stretch your knowledge of templates beyond your current comfort zone and make steps to satisfying the requirements for a regrant of TPE. WP:TFD/H can also be a good place to pick up template work to extend your skills. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Cabayi: OK, thank you. Do you think that would help my case? My question is this: how do I edit and try to solve problems in the sandbox of a template? I just don't know how to edit in sandboxes. Could you please walk me through how to edit in sandboxes? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Charlesaaronthompson, Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases is a good guide. Cabayi (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Euryalus and Cabayi: What edits should I need to make exactly, in order to demonstrate that I've learned from my missteps and to prove that I've learned the sufficient skills necessary to be re-granted template editor rights once again? I'm having a difficult time finding anything that I can edit that I haven't already edited that I can edit in a sandbox. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, are there any protected template edits you know of that you think need making? If so why not lay them out as sample text in a sandbox and suggest to others that they be made? If there aren't any right now then no rush, just wait until you come across some. If there's never any to do then there's no need for the TPE tools. :)

More generally it's not me you need to convince; it's whatever admin reviews your future request at WP:PERM. They'll presumably ask why the tools were removed; once you've pointed to the AN thread you'll probably need to say what you've done since then that would give them confidence that all was well re policy familiarity. Impossible to say exactly what would be sufficient, just consider what might convince a reasonable fellow editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron colorEdit

Hello Euryalus (talk), I was wondering if you would please take a look at a template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I'm not enough of an expert in either template design or football colour codes to offer a very informed opinion. In general though, this is the sort of proposed edit I was talking about above. It demonstrates interest, technical ability and an (admittedly enforced) willingness to discuss. Hopefully someone with the right mix of technical skills and American football know-how will review it shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Boring bureaucracy momentEdit

@Drmies and SlimVirgin: it's an interesting AN discussion you're having but would you mind terribly much if I asked you to continue it somewhere other than inside a closed noticeboard thread?

It's not a huge deal, just gets hard to tell other people not to keep reopening closed debates if the people doing the closing also ignore their own closes. Posting this here because it's easier than adding to multiple usertalks. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

US Wikipedia is run by blockheads ...Edit

... and you are obviously a perfect example. The common joke goes that Wikipedia is run by untalented pupils and workless jerks, both being over-timed and under-qualified. People who were never at the controls of an airplane, never served with the Air Force, never earned a university degree, never made professional historical research, never worked in the aerospace industry, in all: complete deadbeats, dare to "judge" on historical aviation - and on a problem any 6-year old Iraqi boy would correctly resolve in seconds. But foolish and arrogant are breeds of the same tree. Fitting. It's your carrier, and it was virtually destructed by a single plane because 2.000 men were exactly as lazy, stupid and foolish and did despite of ample warning by radar not properly react. This is the mind set of losers. Your "Ryusei" will meet you sooner or later, with the same devastating effect. Play childish with your admin knobs like in the kindergarden, but you cannot change historical truth and the fact that a single able and well trained IJN airplane crew showed the world what happens when arrogance blocks awareness for reality. and it was a "Ryusei", irrelevant how many times you deny it, and it did smash the USN. Franklin never went to service again, a constructive total loss, whether you admit it or not. And do not forget: It was a single "Ryusei" :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:A18B:3D99:34BC:C7B4 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Mildly, it's not "my carrier" because, as I keep pointing out to you, I'm not an American. This carrier is also not a topic area of any interest to me, so I don't really care about the details of your claim. What I do care about is this: if you feel there's a factual error in an article but you find that other editors don't agree, the correct course is to present your case on the article talkpage and get a consensus to have it adopted. Instead, your approach is to edit war while shouting abuse from the sidelines - an attitude which stands no chance of getting the article changed.
So, some advice that you can take or leave: if you really care about this content change then produce your secondary sources, argue your case on the talkpage and it might get added to the page. Otherwise you're just wasting your own and everyone else's time. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no way of discussion on 2+2=4. It's not a majority issue, it's an issue of right and false. Jimmy Wales, who founded the Wikipedia project and now is not very happy with the outcome, always stated that nothing in this world could convince him that 100 stupid wrong "opinions" should supersede a single correct contribution. I did cite again and again all standard references, I am for 40 years a university trained expert in the field, aviator, Air Force soldier, historian in naval aviation, with a library on the topic you will rarely find a second time in private hands on the world. There are only three Japanese aircraft types capable of steep dive and recovery (D3A1/2, D4Y1/3, B7A2), and only one can technically carry two 250 kg bombs - the B7A2. No way for the others. Bombs gear and space are simply not available. And since all official reports prove in maximum detail that Franklin was hit by two 250 kg bombs (I did cite all the Navy documentation form 1946), it MUST have been a B7A2. Pure logic. The type was operational during March on Kyushu, and the flight profile recorded by radar (from Hancock and Franklin herself, sources were cited also) perfectly fits a B7A2 and none of the other types. It is a simple CONCLUSION. That means: Found by own clear and compelling thinking, not by reading a province gazette. By the way, the first naval historian did consent in a web publication on the attack on Franklin in 2019 with that finding (also cited). Maggie Thatcher put it always that way: "There is no alternative." TINA. You can't discuss what's fixed by logic. When simple minds are unable to understand how a dive bomber is constructed and that without religious wonders no Japanese aircraft other than the B7A2 could have possibly achieved what for sure was achieved, the result is clear and does not need the "consent" of anybody, least people who do not understand the basics of the subject. It's the ruling of the majority of fools which destroys English Wikipedia. I'm tired to lecture millenials (generation stupid) on the basics of brain usage. Keep writing nonsense. Franklin was hit by a B7A2, aka "Ruysei" or "Grace", that is an eternal fact, credits to this aircraft superior to anything the Allies put into service on carriers in WWII, and if this does not fit your ideological dreamland history, it's not my problem. My students are told facts, not Wikipedia discussion bullshit. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:A18B:3D99:34BC:C7B4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. From my entirely amateur standpoint your argument sounds reasonable. Your background also indicates significant expertise in this field. But I'd guess you also educate your students about the importance of referencing their work? And that's the issue here - as with any academic presentation an argument must demonstrate its sources and not simply appeal to the personal authority of the arguer. In this context all you'd need would be some references to published historians or citable military communications that present the same argument as you are making here, presented on the article talkpage, and like as not you'd get this change made.
The problem will be if no military historians or (say) published US naval communication agree with you on this matter. Of course that doesn't make your argument wrong - it just means your dispute is not so much with Wikipedia as with the historical establishment. For good or ill Wikipedia is not a venue for advancement of academic reasoning, it's simply a faithful collation of published facts and reasoning by other people. Thats an appropriate stance do an encyclopedia, but unfortunately it means entirely correct hypotheses still cannot be included if no reliable secondary souce has ever supported them. Occasionally this generates some comical results, such as when notable people get told they can't be accepted as accurate biographers of their own lives; but it's necessary in order to avoid the introduction of all manner of random good faith inaccuracies and syntheses on Wikipedia pages.
There's also the obvious challenge of any online publication like Wikipedia, that few people can actually prove they are who they say they are or that they have the expertise they say they have. See for example the Essjay controversy for an example of the deleterious consequences of taking people at their word. This is not to suggest you aren't who you say, just that your personal claim to expertise in this field can't be accepted in and of itself as a reason to change the page.
So, the short version of all the above: your argument sounds reasonable to me as someone with no expertise On this topic. But however accurate it is, it requires reference to published secondary sources saying the same thing or it won't be able to be included. You indicate you have those sources: posting details of them on the article talkpage would seem a good step forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I did REPEATEDLY cite the sources. I lack the time to list my complete library on the matter - it would be a publication of its own. The accepted standard reference for Japanese WWII aircraft is Francillon, Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Putnam, various editions. There are dozens of Japanese sources, the "classic" is the three volume Maruzen compendium on all Japanese aircraft in that era. For carrier planes, Ledet's monumental reference "Samourai sur Porte-Avions", two large volumes, new in 2nd edition 2017, is the bible. Of course, there are legions of monographs on the dive bombers, starting from "Aircraft Profile" and "Famous Airplanes of the World" as the most common and widespread series. All these show clearly: Aircraft capable of steep dive bombing (as on the Franklin, all Battle Reports are clear) and recovery were only the three cited types. And have a look into the technology of bomb cradles in the D3A and the D4Y (for example, "Aircraft Profile" Vol.241, Aichi D3A "Val" and Yokosuka D4Y "Judy", and "Famous Airplanes of the World" Vol.145 Carrier Bomber Suisei "Judy" and Vol.151 Type 99 Carrier Bomber "Val"): No possible way to carry two big bombs. There are numerous references on the battle damage of Franklin, the final being that of the Chief of Naval Operations, War Damage Action Report No.56 "USS Franklin" Bomb Damage Honshu 19 March 1945, issued September 1946, starting from section 3-26, which on long pages with detailed plans and drawings discusses the bomb damage with detailed evidence where exactly the two bombs hit and penetrated the flight deck and that both were definitely 250kg bombs. Prof. Dr. Carlos Marcelo Shäferstein, former high ranking Argentine staff officer, now Professor of History at the University of Buenos Aires, wrote in a discussion paper on July 3rd, 2019 regarding the attack on the Franklin: "Damage analysis concluded that the bombs were 250kg and that neither the D4Y nor the the D3A nor any other single-engine Japanese (aircraft) could use them ... so it could have been an Aichi B7A." Could, and must have been. If you do have an alternative, name it. No multi-engine Japanese plane could do a steep dive and recover (only suicide mission possible). Neither could the A6M5, as without bomb gear only shallow dives could be run with a possible recovery. And then it's finito, no other airplane capable of dive bombing. The radar flight profile can be derived from the well-known publication of Prof. Dr. James Homes of the US Naval War College, from August, 2017, How the Aircraft Carrier USS Franklin "Sank". It contains all data to complete the battle Damage report, leading to calculate the speed of the attacker at 550 km/h, which was clearly a speed which in fully loaden condition only a B7A could reach (470 km/h for the D4Y and less than 400 km/h for the D3A). Furthermore, the plane escaped the CAP - and that was a F4U of Franklin herself, the fastest carrier fighter of WWII of any nation. Only a B7A after dive recovery could possibly outperform the F4U. No go for D4Y, nothing to say of a D3A. The day before the disaster, US carrier planes had actually photographed a single intact B7A on a Kyushu airfield, and so it is clear that the type was combat ready with the 752nd Kokutai during this fateful March 19th. Final remark on the sighting reports: B7A was then brand new, in combat action not before February, 1945. No identification table of the USN in March, 1945, did include it. So no aerial observer on Hancock or Franklin could identify it as such. And the observer wrote "possibly (!) a Judy", NOT "positively a Judy". His comrade also noted that the plane seemed big, almost as a twin-engined type (!). And here we are: From below, the B7A2 and the D4Y3 are very similar in silhouettes, only the B7A being bigger ... So lacking the B7A in their charts, the description fits perfectly well the B7A: Similar to the D4Y (the nearest similar thing in their ID list), but bigger. What in the world does prevent you from accepting that there is compulsory and overwhelming evidence for the B7A? Not the slightest fact around that could indicate otherwise. All fits neatly. Some lazy fool wrote at some time deep in the past, it was a Judy, just relying on the lookout report, perhaps even ignorant that something like the B7A existed at all (only 100 built and put only very rarely in action in the last months of the war), and from then, all others copied that without questioning, making an overwhelming number of authors who "state" that is was a D4Y. Thinking forbidden. Yes, we cite sources here, but we don't rely on "sources" which clearly have no own research background themselves. There is a memorial for one of the young sailors of Franklin who lost his life, 21 years old, in the ordeal of the ship, in Honolulu. This simple memorial, made by his family, no naval experts nor historians, in all its innocence credits the B7A Ryusei with the hits, for the simple reason that two bombs exclude any other explanation. One singe sentence, one single argument, just common sense. These ordinary people outclass generations of US "naval historians". A shame. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:684D:9095:3ED1:43CD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this, and I understand the point you're making. You've also identified an occasional weakness of Wikipedia, which is what to do when historical consensus is arguably wrong. This manifests in various ways other than this carrier article - for example in colonial histories of Australia, written by eminent historians of the day, which proclaim a total absence of indigenous agency in responding to European settlement. Or post-WWII and post-US Civil War histories, which present historical facts through a somewhat romantic lens. Or (in rectification of a faulty consensus), Braudel's excellent La Méditerranée, written in part because he couldn't believe the general historical view that nothing really happened in the sixteenth century Mediterranean.
There's also the separate problem of what to do when historical consensus has noting to say, and the void is filled by random factoids and conspiracy theories. The long-running saga of History_wars#Controversy_over_smallpox_in_Australia is a case in point - there's no credible evidence that the original European settlers deliberately spread smallpox to the Australian indigenous community, but there's also no evidence that they didn't. The gap is therefore filled with random opinion pieces from self-proclaimed experts intent on blackening the name of the colonists, rebutted by tortuous and unlikely theories about smallpox coincidentally migrating from Indonesia. The middle-ground argument that someone in the First Fleet had smallpox (very likely), and that this was inadvertently transferred to the indigenous population (very likely) is too boring for most and therefore ignored. The result is a lack of reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia, and an article pulled towards the extremes ("Colonists did it on purpose! Colonists are completely blameless! How dare you! No, how dare you!").
What has all this to do with your carrier? You seem to make a logical point about misidentification of the bomber involved. You also make a case that published historical sources are either wrong (based on some ancient inaccuracy lazily amplified over time) or at best equivocal and uninterested in pursuing the detail. But with that in mind, Wikipedia's problem is we have to rely on those possibly inaccurate or equivocal sources, because our articles can be edited by anyone and there's no other way of discerning fact from fiction. That means our articles are sometimes inaccurate on smaller details where the weight of historical analysis itself is inaccurate. The only way to fix that is to change the weight of historical analysis, which can only be done via new or unearthed sources from within the historical community. It cannot be done at Wikipedia directly, because our articles are not a source of expertise but simply a faithful mirror of what other published experts had to say.
And so to the short version, which I always like to do when adding walls of text: I can see your point, but the heart of the dispute seems to be with global historical consensus rather than this Wikipedia page. Change that historical consensus, and our article will faithfully reflect it. Until then, right or wrong we're stuck with repeating what most published histories say, which seems to tend in the opposite direction to the point you're looking to add. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It did copy the discussion regarding a "Grace" attacking USS Franklin ...Edit

... to the discussion page of the carrier's main article but I doubt anyone will read this or try to argue. The article is blocked against corrections, thus freezing the wrong story indefinitely. Anyway, I will try now to get the historical truth into the Japanese Wikipedia which is much more important for the credits of a B7A2 Ryusei "Grace" anyway. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:CDA1:C7AA:B163:2867 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, but only today? Might have helped to have posted it earlier and without interspersing it with abusive commentary. There was someone who questioned this issue back in 2016 but their comment seems unrelated to your argument so am assuming it was a different editor.
Anyway, two things: first, it seems like your addition was removed because of the insults. If you reposted without these, it might spark an actual debate on the bomber types. Second, the article itself is only locked for a few more days, not indefinitely. This would be a good time to seek that consensus I mention above, on the talkpage. Otherwise, just remaking the same edit when the protection expires will likely lead to the same result as before - the edit removed and the page relocked. But entirely up to you.
In passing, thanks for making me actually read the article; I don't normally have much interest in WWII topics so its good to learn new things. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RFPPEdit

Hello,

Looking at the edit history of Melanie Fontana, should I request pending changes protection? Lots of controversial edits from autoconfirmed users. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 10:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Just got vandalized again, going to RFPP. Giraffer (munch) 10:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Thanks again. Will keep an eye out. Giraffer (munch) 10:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Giraffer: am not a fan of pending changes because of the annoying header warning it gives on watchlists, but  Done. A couple of these vandals seem likely to be autoconfirmed, so if it keeps happening let me know and I'll full-protect it for a day or two. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Multiple IPs continuing to vandalize but I'm dragging them to AIV so should clear up soon. Giraffer (munch) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that I have opened an ANI thread here. Giraffer (munch) 11:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

HartaMarta and the Raid on GaboroneEdit

Can you take a look please, the editor is just destroying this article with their ownership claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:201:5F00:80B6:B5F5:7A7E:BDE6 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. I can't see any edits to the article in the last couple of days, and just two posts on the talkpage since the ANI thread closed. On that basis there isn't anything that presently requires admin tools to fix.
There's certainly no deadline by which changes have to be made to the article, but it might help in building consensus on proposals if it was notified to WP:3O or any relevant wikiprojects. Hope that's useful. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Final remark on USS Franklin, Ryusei and the Wikipediots, just FYIEdit

Again the typical reaction of the silly little dictators running Wikipedia is: No arguments, no civilized apporach, but "block" and "delete". Jerk reflex.

Nobody cares when a "normal" contributor is defamed as "utter fool" for a well founded, professional edit with half a dozen citations from acknowledged standard references. This offensive approach is, to the contrary, applauded by other "admins". Wild guesses who the contributing person is in real life (and of course far missing the point) are no problem although there were times when any attempt to unmask a user would led to immediate punishment due to violation of privacy rules. Long gone. When the victim starts defending, however, the hysterical reaction (in complete lack of any argument) is primitve blocking, deleting, the same mind set as we find for a any mad fourth world dictator. Idi Amin said, we respect freedom of speech, but there is no freedom of consequences thereof ... Could be the mantra of Wikipedia.

Just for the log, as I won't repeat myself, and for the use in my lessons:

The attempted edit, a correction of an obvious error, failed, and it failed foreseable. The only objective was to demonstrate the complete uselessness of Wikipedia and to justify that Wikipedia articles must not be used nor be cited in professional work in order to avoid substantial benchmark penalty. Company networks therefore should block all Wikipedia sites for employees.

Do you really think I care whether the simple minds using Wikipedia know which plane attacked some US carrier 75 years ago, long since scrapped? I do know the correct answer for 50 years, and I am right and Wikipedia is wrong. However, my finding has been widely duplicated some two decades ago after the model kit community got word of the matter: Hasegawa issued their iconic 1/48 B7A2 Ryusei "Grace" kit also in the dive bomber version (#JT50) with Shigeo Koike's striking box art depicting the plane just releasing its two (!) 250kg bombs side by side at the end of the dive run on USS Franklin. Bingo - the rabbit was out of the hat! There is now nobody in the expert historical model community who does not know on that a Grace smashed Franklin, and non-US historians slowly picked up the news during the last years, also. So I did not disclose any secret any more when using this topic for the demonstration of the inferior quality and unprofessional handling of things in Wikipedia - what I stated is now for years all over town except for the Wikipediots with admin status and the stubborn US historians who always are last in the world to understand something every schoolboy in Iraq or Simbabwe already knows. No, I did not insult anybody, it were the Wikipediots who made complete fools of themselves, all alone, without any help, they are perfect in that subject, as always and easily expected - just to evidence it again in a striking recent matter. You're unable to count to two. Two bombs are more than one, and this extremely basic logic fact already completely overcharges the blockheads playing at the knobs as Wiki admins.

End of exercise. You Wikipediots lost, and you not even did notice. My closing remark is a perfect play on words: Not recognizing the "Grace" as the correct plane type - quelle disgrâce! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:5CC5:F15B:6354:63A9 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Sorry to see you go, but I do kind of agree with the comment on your latest talkpage, also outlined a few sections above this one. Material needs to be reliably sourced. It's not enough that you know something is true, you need to be able to prove it with sourcing. It doesn't appear that you've been willing to continue the discussion on the article talkpage, so that sourcing discussion probably hasn't advanced. Suggest that page (again) as the best way forward if you really do think the USS Franklin article needs amendment. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Just for you (all those US Wikipediots disregard): The question is whether Wikipedia has at least the standards of an elementary school. I did learn to apply logic rules. There is no proof whatsoever that in history of mankind somebody ever did calculate, say 23,441.23 + 66,092.87. So, there would be no "source" to be cited for the result of 89,534.10. Still, the answer is correct and cannot be disputed, and I am fully entitled to use that very result and claim it to be correct and respected. If we do not apply common sense, logic and mathematics to what we know in order to find and evidence under the laws of them new valid results (what the great Greek philosophers and mathematicians told us as the immortal heritage of civilized mankind and eternal truth), we will fall back into the stone age or worse become complete apes again (our politicians are working already very hard on that). I did also study history (although my doctorates are physics and law including legal history), and I did learn that many great historians have come to conclusions not only by digging into "sources" but by using their brains and checking whether something is in accordance with the laws of physics. A plane which can just carry one bomb suggested to have dropped in one instance two bombs is not. Period. That's wrong, with or without source. And it is a shame for all these tax-payer fed "professors" and "professorinas" (or how this gender bullshit makes a silly hoax of women researcher's titles) that they miss what simple clerks and workers who make up the majority of the model building community long have accepted as a result clear to anybody not completely brainwashed by the idiocracy of today's "universities". I left this sand box level circus many years ago as I do prefer a mature approach also to my professional life. I changed to a management position in economy where my responsibility for the company, the shareholders and the employees forces me to act on the clear and straightforward use of my logical working brains and mind. I can't afford to ignore basic realities. Here in Germany we have coined for these erratic blockheads in politics, media (like Wikipedia) and modern universities a fitting term: "People for whom the money comes from the electrical outlet." These species thinks it can "create" its own "virtual reality", thereby playing God, but as a matter of fact they are mere earthworms who have lost any sense for the real world. The world you can touch, feel, smell, hear and see. The world of nurses, farmers, craftsmen, bus drivers, saleswomen in the supermarket, policemen or firebrigade crews - those poeple who do run our daily life, feed us, protect us against all kinds of threats, and who cannot fail to respect mother nature's laws without killing people (including themselves). Forget Wikipedia. It's one of the basic lessons for my enterprise and these I do support as a consultant: Hands off, and stay away as far as possible, from anything run by these money-from-the-outlet creatures. I am going to build my 1/48 Hasegawa model of the Aichi Ryusei, two bombs side by side in the bay with open doors, name it "Franklin smasher", and all Wikipedia administrators are hereby indefinitely blocked from viewing it. :-) That's fun ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:FCE9:77A8:2603:D510 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
And Wikipediots not even allow to edit own comments, last stage of decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:7C2D:BE5C:8D81:62F1 (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean FarmerEdit

Could you please extend the pageblock to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, for exactly the same reason. I keep having to remove dozens of cites to blogs, self-published sources and campaign affiliated sites added by LBF. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: thanks for the message. Happy to do this but it might just shift the issue to other pages. Problem seems to be a fundamental disagreement with wp:endorse, and aspects of wp:blp, wp:v and the spirit of WP:NOTTRUTH. No problems with them raising their RfC on source independence in endorsements, but they shouldn't be allowed to edit according to their own view of the guideline prior to any consensus for change.
Have left them a talkpage message highlighting some of the above. Let's see what the response is; absent anything really convincing I'll look at what wider restrictions might be applied. And tagging Lima Bean Farmer to let them know they're mentioned here. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: already moot as topic banned by someone else. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Euryalus, yes, thanks, I read deeper and took it to ANI because it's a bigger issue. Not sure if Barkeep's wider ban will stand, we'll see. Sorry to interrupt your day. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: No worries, thanks for taking the time to come by and discuss. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Why this big block?Edit

Why are you imposing this big block on me? I thought from dealing with you on the issue of the Republicans who oppose Trump you’d see that I was an editor who is trying to improve Wikipedia and now I’m being blocked from this page because Jz Guy or whatever their name is reverted my edits? I see that they’re primary sources and did not add them back. Once again, another editor did. I have not added any primary sources since. Why is this even a problem? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lima Bean Farmer! I haven't blocked you at all - that was Barkeep49 via the topic ban at ANI. Left to my own devices I might have proposed a voluntary agreement to again revisit the sources you're using for these additions, and to only propose them on talkpages unless they're iron-clad (eg. NY Times, not Medium.com). But I'm generally softer with sanctions than others, and in fairness there've been a number of warnings that your use of unreliable sources might one day lead to this kind of topic ban. So while it's a strong action, it's (regrettably) neither unexpected or outside the realm of standard actions where elections, blp, nottruth and wp:v all coincide. I appreciate you didn't restore the material after it was reverted, but I know you know the content guidelines so I'm surprised you added these blog sources and medium.com at all.
Anyway, done is done. I note you've queried the topic ban at ANI, which is the right place for that discussion. If the thread gets lost in the throng you might also consider raising directly with the blocking admin, though as above the actual ban is within the realm of normal admin actions so chances of reversion are small. As an aside you might also argue for a reduction from three months down to whenever polling day is (one month?). But up to you. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculousEdit

This is ridiculous that I have been banned from editing all of these pages. These are the only pages that I edit and now I can’t edit any of them at all. Can’t you see that I’m an editor who is improving and always doing my best to improve articles? I know you’re not the one who placed the ban, but if you wanted to, you could try to use your influence to get the ban lifted. Now the blocking (banning?) admin isn’t even commenting. I have no idea what to do. This is extremely excessive. If anyone saw my edits, they would see I edit talk pages more than almost anyone else I’ve ever seen. Plus, I’m trying to improve! No primary sources? I don’t add them! Don’t add unsourced content? Ok, I’ll source it. And now this ban. This is ridiculous. I should just call it quits on Wikipedia. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: hi again, apologies I was offline. Agree you're acting with good intent, and also have been raising possible additions on some talkpages as a good step to getting consensus on sourcing. However it concerns me a little that even after the conversations about not using unreliable sources, you went ahead and added suggested Biden endorsements sourced to blogs and poorly fact-checked sites like Medium.com. I know you know the rules of WP:ENDORSE because you've opened the RfC on its talkpage, so why keep adding stuff to articles that breaches it? Bluntly, it's not enough that you didn't choose to edit war when reverted - you shouldn't be continuing to add these unreliably sourced materials at all.
The inevitable consequence is an exhaustion of community patience which could probably have been seen coming via the repeated noticeboard threads and partial block. You can appeal the current topic ban and if you do then best of luck with it. However I doubt you'll get it lifted, at least until the US election.
The alternative is to accept the current restriction for at least the next four weeks; edit other articles until then, and (again) consider avoiding blogs and user-contributed webpages as sources for anything at all. Sorry that this is not of much help but you haven't left much room to move by continuing with poor sourcing straight after removal of a previous restriction for poor sourcing.
And in idle passing, [1] and [2] are breaches of the topic ban. No need to remove them but if you want my gratuitous advice, go to the ANI thread and explain that this was a momentary lapse and you won't add more post-1932 US politics material until the ban expires or is removed. As above, take or leave this advice as you choose; just suggesting it as ANI can sometimes be a kneejerk sort of place. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

SighEdit

Well it looks like my ban won’t be lifted. It’s a shame, since I expected editors like you would at least advocate for talk page access for me. But it’s alright, you were probably offline. Anyways, it’s time for me to leave anyway, no one thinks any of my contributions are useful and it’s pretty clear I’m unwelcome here. Thank you for what you’ve done to help with the Republicans who oppose Trump pageLima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Bluntly, I might have advocated for it but the subsequent discussions on your talkpage and on other random admin talkpages make clear it would be a bad idea. You do know the sourcing requirements, but even after you were obviously aware of them you continued to add poorly sourced materials to politics pages. You've had this advice numerous times but here it is again: try editing on any of the 6 million articles unrelated to post-1932 US politics. Maybe you'll discover a wider range of editing interests. Even if you don't you'll have a body of on-wiki proof that you can follow reliable sourcing requirements, perhaps sufficient to get the politics topic ban removed. And either way, the Biden/Trump endorsement/opposition pages will still be there in three months and can be updated with reliable sources at that time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angus McMillan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunai. 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) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

HMS LevantEdit

In order to access the Pennsylvania Gazette I use a subscription database, via a school I work for, called Early American Newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregRog (talkcontribs) 19:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

arrgh, yarrgh, gah, rahEdit

You bring up matters of great importance - the selfimportant eds who determine whether a project is live, dead, have obviously not the appropriate qualifications to discern or ascertain mortality or even the slightest understanding of forensic autopsy work... the whole project system around things maritime has stunk since some smart arse decided 'ships', 'trains' - everything maritime is a mess - snd has been always...I could rant at length with severed disrespect towards all. Idiots abound. Shipwrecks is important. Needless to say I believe someone should have had courage in the old days to have created maritime history - much more specific and helpful than maritime trades and its infinite variants. Enough, dont let me start. Piracy gone? grrrrr. infidels, sassanachs, troglodyytes.

nah piracy still there, arggghhh JarrahTree 07:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ports needs resurrecting JarrahTree 12:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now openEdit

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!Edit

Disc Sol BM GR1899.12-1.2.jpg Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closingEdit

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team