User talk:SuperSkaterDude45/Archive 1

Hey, I´m afraid I´ve just reverted quite a number of your edits that had added numerous flags to infoboxes, specifically the commanders section. Those flags have its use there, they are good to have when there are multiple nations/factions one a side, the display of the respective commanders of the different factions being greatly aided by said affiliated flags. However when a side has only a single nation, and the commander(s) not using another flag than that (e.g. army/navy flags or clan crests etc.) it is superfluous to repeatedly add this single flag to each commander. Othersise it clutters up without adding new information or aiding the visual. Please don´t let that stop you from editing on wikipedia, and thanks for working on military history topics. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hi SuperSkaterDude45! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FDW777 (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boyd and Parker ambush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Boyd. 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) 06:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also read WP:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You need to readwp:v wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Battle of Anderlecht, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Maastricht (1793), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you have evidence to support the story, please present it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Beyond My Ken: Here's the thing though, there is no evidence that it was fake and since its unsourced that it is and no consensus was reached. However there is a discussion going on at the article talk page to discuss this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi - As I explained in my edit the reason why the I removed the flags was per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. If you look at the edit history for this article flags have previously been removed by other editors for exactly the same reason on 10 June 2016 and 2 August 2017. Other articles that you have listed may still have flags but just because they are still included elsewhere (in breach of the guideline) does not mean they should be inserted here. You made a bold edit: I reverted it in accordance with WP:BRD. The issue now needs to be resolved (perhaps by the involvement of other editors) before you can reinsert them. So in the meantime please remove them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons and pay special attention to Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CambridgeBayWeather: The same MOS states: "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. However, physical geographic articles – for example, continents, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. – should not. Where one article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g., Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." Its the primary basis on why I'm adding flags on city infoboxes. Don't exactly recall any disputes on the city articles I've edited alone not to mention almost every major city article has flags in their infoboxes. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

However, the emphasised word in the above is may and not must. Most places I've seen don't have them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CambridgeBayWeather: That doesn't really justify the reverts you made on some of my edits then, also examples of cities including flagicons include Victoria, British Columbia, Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C, Detroit, and Chicago just to name a few. As per the German Confederation example, I was going to make the chart more like States of the Weimar Republic as the previous version was more unorganized. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

But this is very difficult to read with the mass of colour that provides no encyclopedic content. Plus you added a link to a disambiguation page. I hadn't noticed the Victoria page so I fixed that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CambridgeBayWeather: So you won't remove the flags on US articles yet remove them on Canadian ones? Rather inconsistent with which articles are supposed to have them. Also the table gave the listing a more organised format as the flags make the states pop out more and other graphs have flags in them. + If they aren't allowed to be used, why are they there to begin with? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I never said I would not remove flags on United States articles. I remove them as I come across them but I don't go looking for them. I find the use of flags distracting blobs of colour. If you don't know what the flag is then it isn't going to make anything pop out but more difficult to find the name you need. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CambridgeBayWeather: People generally recognize U.S State flags and Canadian provincial flags though, especially those who live in said states/provinces and generally have different color palettes and generally don't even take up much space anyways SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of city flags, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently created Enrique Jurado Barrio, I was wondering whether you forgot to add the actual sources? Right now, it only has footnotes in the format of [Author][Date][page]. 15 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late respond but I just translated the Spanish page, when I have time, I'll add more sources SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great. I've added the translation icon on the talk page too, try doing that the next time for proper attribution! Happy editing, 15 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SuperSkaterDude45: Hi there, please note that I have reverted your edit make to SinB as you restore the revision with vandalism. I have since restore it back to correct revision done by IP user. In addition, I have also corrected your protection report on WP:RPP by striking out IP user as IP user edit was good faith by removing the vandalism did by the new user. Please take note in the future when restoring revision. Thanks you and happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Paper9oll: Oh no worries, it's perfectly fine, it was just confusing seeing all the edits being reverted so I can't really tell who's side is on who. Thanks for correcting a error on my part. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of city flags, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trujillo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Operations in Valtellina (1866), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 16:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The translation here is kinda rough - stuff like "trang" and『Tập』appear as parts of references, and it isn't really clear what they mean. Also some errors like the Württemberg army arrived at Lichtenberg on the morning of 9 August.and captured the village of Lichtenberg and led by Major General Hugo von Obernitz of the Kingdom of Prussia commander - part of payroll army No. 3 of the German under the control of the Crown Prince Prussia 's Friedrich Wilhelm and German Soldiers of the RegimentNo. 2 . There's also a couple direct links to dab pages. How exactly did you translate this, as there's quite a bit of stuff that's pretty rough here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hog Farm: It isn't a perfect translation as it was directly translated from the Vietnamese wiki using some tools, and there can some translation issues with the spacing and sentence structuring. Also I'm not good with references so "trang" and『Tập』are part of the original vietnamese text, that being said I'm currently making another translation for another battle of the Franco-Prussian War and I'll take these criticisms in mind, thanks for letting me know about the faults of one of my translations and I'll be sure to improve. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:57, 06 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding. I've left a note at a military history project page to see if a Franco-Prussian war buff can look into it to try to clean up the dab links and make sure all the unit names and such translated over right. Hog Farm _Talk 05:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hog Farm: No worries about it, but yeah the links and unit names could be improved since again I'm not the best in references.SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:10, 06 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the flag you inserted here and a few other pages was only used on ships. It was not the flag of the Palestine Government, which used the Union Jack. Some information is here. Zero^talk 04:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I know the Union Jack was the national flag and officially used but used the Ensign to lessen the Disambiguation between the two articles. Also I added a caption which labeled it as the Maritime Ensign. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

But that is not the meaning of flags in infoboxes. It is confusing to invent contrary conventions. Zero^talk 10:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nouart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mézières.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello SuperSkaterDude45. The edition that he has made in the article War of the Pacific is contrary to what has already been mentioned in the body of the same article, more precisely in the section on foreign intervention. The United Kingdom was neutral in the war, it did not support either side. --Muwatallis II (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Soft Underbelly of Europe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#Soft Underbelly of Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

An article you recently created, Raid on Callao, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Hans Hedemann, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Wilhelm Lawicz-Liszka, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Wilhelm Lawicz-Liszka, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will do for any future translations as I didn't know how to create any until recently. Thanks for letting me know about this and I'll be sure to create assessment talk page tags as well. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please see this Wikiproject level discussion where the consensus was to not use multiple-color infoboxes. Do not make those change again unless you start up a new discussion at WT:VG that has a WP:CONSENSUS for using colors. (Technically, WP:BRD alone says that you should not have reverted me, but especially not when there's an active consensus against you.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, this discussion is hidden within archives and they probably didn't know about the previous discussion. Panini!^🥪 11:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Panini!, yeah, I don't necessarily blame them for not knowing of the discussion, my irritation was more that his initial response was, upon being reverted and being notified of a consensus, their reaction was to ignore BRD and make the edit again asking for proof. That should be a talk page comment, not a revert. And they should know that, considering the edit warring notifications on this very talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

On retrospect, I should've discussed this in Serge's talk page and I take responsibility for the edit war but as Panini has stated, I never knew about the archived discussion as I don't usually look too deep into the archives of wikiprojects so apologies for this edit war. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Carey de Bellemare, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello SuperSkaterDude45! Your additions to Selah H. R. Tompkins 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• Ifyou 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 either 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs ("CC BY-NC-ND") license is not compatible with Wikipedia. Thank you. eviolite (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Operations in Valtellina (1866) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Operations in Valtellina (1866), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Schwede66 00:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for quality articles about generals around the world, translated, such as Julian Filipowicz, Antin Kravs, Ángel Ortiz Monasterio and Giuseppe Pennella, and about battles such as Siege of Bitche, for adding flags, and all this in just a year! - Proud Peruvian, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2659 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I was doing some work in Wikidata and came across Yoshitoku Tomura. In the Japanese version of the article the hiragana after the first occurrence of his name says とむら よしのり (Tomura Yoshinori). What is your source for the Yoshitoku reading? Should I change the reading on the Japanese page, or do we need to move the English page to Yoshinori? Thanks. Mcampany (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC) c I primarily used Google Translate for the intial translation so perhaps the transliteration was a error on Google's end. I was actually conflicted on his name for a long time over what his name actually was as the his father was known as "Yoshinori". Again, likely an error on the translation but it could probably be a grammatical error from the Japanese wiki. - SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking into this. On the Japanese wikipedia page it looks like his father's name is actually read as "Yoshikata". In my experience, Google translate isn't great at reading Japanese names so I recommend avoiding it in the future if possible. Do you mind if I move and edit the page, or would you like to do it? Mcampany (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mcampany: I'm currently working on another page so you can do the move and edits, thanks for fixing the naming error and advice for future translations on Japanese articles! SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great, will do! Take care, Mcampany (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Ma Yukun, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply