User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 14

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Hi, I removed my support for the strawpoll basically because I have no real beef in the fight (I'm not an expert on Soviet operations during WW2) and I don't really care what that particular article is called. Just be aware that "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" is probably what most people will search for if they were looking for that article (I think anyway). I believe that an encyclopedia should be just as helpful for non-experts as for experts, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, two questions:

1. What are your thoughts on battles like Battle of Basra (2008) and Second Battle of Fallujah. In your opinion, should they be renamed Operation Charge of the Knights and Operation Phantom Fury?
2. Do you think there is a need for guidelines on the use of "strategic" and "tactical" when it comes to the results field of the battle infobox. You seem to have a handle on military terms so I'm just wondering what you think when you see "strategic Taliban victory" in the Battle of Wanat article.

Thank you for your time. Lawrencema (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Timelines: masochists only

Check this out User:Dhatfield/EasyTimeline Tutorial. I'm afraid I will not do Timelines on request because of the pain involved, but it is possible. Dhatfield (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To move later

Historical Perspectives on the Operational Art, Edited by Michael D. Krause and R. Cody Phillips, US Army, 2005 [1]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (2)

You have been blocked for four days, per the Digwuren restriction, for incivility and personal attacks. Here are a few sample diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a review of this block at AN/I. I took the opportunity to ask for a review of your past behaviour, with a view to imposing a lengthier block, or mentoring, or a community ban. I have asked for the discussion to be transcluded so that you can participate. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your email:

1. The article is covered by Digwuren because of the Soviet Russian connection.
2. The block has already been endorsed by the community.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see how this excuse goes with ArbCom.

What community? Look around Roger - 10 people!!! That's called a quorum. In any case, you can pass all the decisions you and your "community" want because I don't recognise it as a "community", just a misuse of power. Truth will eventually prevail Roger. It always does.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) For your information, the sanctions available to administrators under the Digwuren restriction have now been significantly amended. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Following this discussion, you have been placed under an editing restriction that:

"[you are] subject to probation (supervised editing) for 6 months. Should [you] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, [you] may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for up to 1 month. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on [your] talk page by the administrator. After 2 bans on the same page or set of pages, the duration of the ban on that page or set of pages may be increased to 1 year."

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not accepted by me, and to be addressed in ArbCom--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodie, I can even edit my own talk page now. See you in ArbCom--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a voluntary restriction - it is one imposed on you by the community. Of course, you may appeal to the community or the Committee. As with messages stating that you are blocked, this is to remain unaltered if you wish to keep access to your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mrg3105 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block was instituted under the Digwuren restriction, but the article which seemingly caused it was about Manchuria (China); the discussion was on a matter of application of Wikipedia procedure to article content, and WP:OR rather than any content related to Eastern Europe

Decline reason:

Your block and the restriction were endorsed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Block review invited: mrg3105. The Digwuren restriction specifies that "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction". This does not require that the objectionable conduct itself be made on a page related to Eastern Europe, but only that it is made by an editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe. —  Sandstein  08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Let me get this right. If I should come into a dispute about the performance of Swan Lake in Japan, I can be blocked under the the Digwuren restriction because Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was a Russian, oh, and because I had edited the Battle of Kursk...hmmm Wikilogic--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the restrictions don't apply to editors who get involved in disputes, simply to editors who misbehave in disputes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GO MAN GO!! U LEGEND!

EZ1234 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

2 inch mortar

Yes, I've tried without success to find the bursting charge of the HE shell. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly haven't been there yet to look at the manual. I normally stay away from eBay so I doubt I'll be bidding on it. Thanks for the tip, though. . . . Just looked at the item. Not a bad price if it stays in that range. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello, I see you got yourself into a bit of trouble in my two week absence! Anyway, I have moved your first three user talk archive into your userspace, as it were, they were attached to a non-existent account. I also added this to the Digwuren talkpage. I think this is what Fayssal wanted, I hope it is not misleading, simply showing the relevant links. How is tank coming along, have you got a sandbox set up yet? Woody (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting confused, it was artillery. In terms of tank, if it is not evolving then there is only a finite amount of information that can be included, surely a positive? You still haven't given up the verbose rants yet then? I prefer concise and succinct retorts myself. Fayssal is fair and responsive, as are most if not all of the arbitrators, that is why they were chosen. I think you are talking about English Language, not English Lit, Lit refers to literature (The Bell, Faustus, Shakespeare etc).

You were given a warning three days before your first block here by Rlevse. So, not entrapment, you were warned and you were incivil. It is not within the purview of Wikipedia to modify editor's behaviour, it is within its purview to moderate it though. Incivil editors, no matter how productive, helpful etc, should be punished for incivility towards other editors. Incivility is a fine line, distorted by each individual editor to meet their own needs, but even so, you have broken it many times, and you have been blocked. Now, a refusal to accept this will lead to ever-increasing block times. You need to give, meet people half-way here. If you don't like the renaming of articles by polls ("Wikipedia didn't like the original name, and this was done by a poll.") then, simply put, you don't have to edit Wikipedia. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that wherever I go in Wikipedia, new rules are discover, such as "concise and succinct retorts" in reply. So noted.

The Tank article, as many others, is written by many, who know little. For example, the section on design is a mere four paragraphs, and for further information one is redirected to Tank classification article, which is poorly cited, and seems to rely on an incomplete Canadian master's thesis which arrives at the same conclusion, but for different reasons, and a journal article from US despite probably the most covered subject in the area of military technology. However, I am sure that should I start editing there, I will get a plethora of "good faith" civil consensus votes on almost everything regardless of the sources I cite. However, the reference and citations need to be checked as they seem not to match each other, yet again.

I meant English Literature. That not only teaches how to use English, but also how to think, and more importantly evaluate what is read. There is emphasis (currently) on school children being able to spell and write, but that does not necessarily mean they can read, and derive meaning form what they read.

I assure you that I no notice of the warning, and had not read the Dirwuren restrictions at the time because I could not fathom how I was uncivil, the work having a different meaning to me.

"You need to give, meet people half-way here." You mean sometimes I should let them use original research because some Wikipedia editors like it?

There is a conflict between

• No original research - policy
• Consensus - policy
• Verifiability - policy
• Neutral point of view - policy
• Naming conventions (use English)- convention (as applied to my field of contribution)

As I see the above can be ordered in a priority of application to the source of disagreement.

1 Is the source of disagreement based on a verified source?

• 1.1 If not - original research - remove from content per No original research policy
• 1.2 If yes ->

2 Is the source of disagreement based on Verifiability policy

• 2.1 Primary source - if not
• 2.2 Secondary source - if not
• 2.3 Tertiary source - if not seek consensus

3 Is the source based on neutral point of view? per Neutral point of view policy

• 3.1 If not - evaluate and rephrase or present counterpoint view t offer a balanced treatment
• 3.2 If yes ->

4 Is there a consensus on the logic by which the source of disagreement was arrived at? per Consensus policy

• 4.1 If yes - go to vocabulary
• 4.2 If no - re-examine logic

5 Vocabulary per Naming conventions

• 5.1 Is the source of disagreement in the title or the content?
  • A If title - go to Naming conventions
  • B If content - go to sources #1
• 5.2 Is the source of disagreement an English word or a translation from another language?
  • A If English - look at etymology and other reference sources
  • B If translation - seek alternative translations and meaning in the original language

Based on the above, I should be able to edit with never having to worry about straw polls, right? After all "A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it." In the Manchurian issue, the poll determined to rename the article not base on sources, but rather on the proposal that Raul654 didn't like how it sounded. That comes under the Wikipedia policy for aesthetic titling, right? The "sources" were merely provided by one poll participant during the straw poll, but were never the reason for the renaming, for which there is a procedure where the RM s not based on sources, or evaluated as per Verifiability. So its not that "If you don't like the renaming of articles by polls", but Wikipedia doesn't like it either. Too verbose? Was I uncivil again? Did I not understand something? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, by all means write verbose responses, it is just off-putting. It is your prerogative, there is no policy on it. Wikipedia assesses the article name, or reassesses it by "consensus" which is to be honest: !votes. From what I understand, your title "Strategic offensive..." was a minority title shared by a small minority of historians, it is not the most commonly used, which is what we go on here. Your own thought process omits one detail: consensus, that process is your own, and yours alone. As you know, Wikipedia works on consensus, (ie long drawn out process of everyone putting their own opinion in). I think you singling out Raul is wrong, you just locked heads over the issue, he was the most vocal proponent because frankly, everyone else tries to avoid confrontation with you now. "Written by many who know little" is the unofficial motto of Wikipedia, so no surprise there then. If you did thinks tactfully then you wouldn't hit the "good faith consensus votes." Trying to influence British/Australian/American education policy from the confines of Wikipedia seems a bit ill-conceived to me, we can lament all we want, but we still have to deal with it.

So, in summary, all that I intended was to offer my opinion, I get a glorious rant in return. Well, I give up, you can dig holes all you want, when you accept the offer of a ladder, let me know. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)