Contents

User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi Anmccaff. I noticed your recent new paragraphatBashford Dean regarding his influence on helmet design. Would you happen to have the source available for this information? While I could poke around for the information, I'm hoping that you have it at your fingertips. Regards —Waldhorn (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Helmets and body armor in modern warfare ((Dean, Bashford, 1867-1928)). is the most accessible source I know of right now; its available with full view and searchability on Hathitrust, and downloadable from Internet Archive. It's from '20 or so, and doesn't detail the later near-adoption in...'37?, if memory serves. I have that someplace in hard copy; mighta been the Ordnance or QM official histories from WWII, but don't remember. Anmccaff (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. I added Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare as a reference and then noted that citations are needed for how he influenced helmet design through the 1980s as well as the 1937 rejection. I'd be interested in seeing what you dig out of your shelves. Cheers —Waldhorn (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's gonna be a month at least before I even see my shelves again, so I added a web reference. This also seems to be briefly mentioned in "Wound Ballistics" which is found in a lot of depository libraries. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough! You might want to add a [sic] or a comment that says not to "fix" it, to avoid drive-by typo corrections like mine. Cheers! Terrek (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nahh, you did the right thing; it's just kinda odd that the typo was copied verbatim into Wiki. Anmccaff (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit-war - take your proposed changes to the talk page instead. Parsecboy (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As a simple glance at the article talk page will show, I had already addressed several of these points -unanswered by you, before your double reversion. That is to say, it rather looks like it is you who are edit warring. Anmccaff (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Replying to an objection does not entitle you to try to force your edit through. You have been here long enough to know that. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not "reply to an objection;" I explicitly mentioned several of the inconsistencies of fact your article contains. Please address them rather than simply revert. Anmccaff (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your so-called inconsistencies of fact are entirely your opinion, or are the result of a poor reading of the article. I see this is not the first time you've had trouble with edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, twice. To begin with, there is a rather large pile of specific objections to your article, both in edit commentary and the talk page, as well as implicit in changes made, none of which you have even attempted to make a serious answer to. Next, would you care to justify that crack about edit-warring? Take a good look at the company it would put you in, go on. Anmccaff (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of your objections are nonsense. And as for your history of edit-warring, one need not scroll up your talk page very far to see the block you received a scant 3 weeks ago.

Then I suggest you take it to AN# if you think it's relevant, or shut up otherwise. And I suggest that your stonewalling, essentially "I don't like it," is wrong.

In any event, please stop duplicating everything on the talk page. There is no need to blockquote everything I say, or everything in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble responding to what's been actually said even when it's right nearby, separating it might make it worse. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if that is your issue, you need to take it up further. He, and all other architects are already in the artist category tree. If you take a look at this category, you will see all American architects are also American artists. If you look at the Category:Architects you will see they are designers, which if you go down that category tree, you also end up in artists. So, please revert your edit so that it is in conformance with the existing category structure. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's policy, it does make sense to take it up as such, rather than article by article, so I've reverted my edit.

That said, I think blanket inclusion of one group in another is wrong. McIntire may not be the best exemplar here, since he was also a sculptor, but there are any number of architects who were fine artists of some sort also, and at least as many who were merely draftsmen. Lumping them all together is a Bad Idea. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that it seems odd at first, as it was odd for me as well. However, that was with me thinking traditionally about what I thought was an artist, and not about it in a broader sense. When you think about it, architects are creating works of art (literally as they are protected under copyright laws as works of art) in the buildings they design. Anyway, thanks for reverting. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nahh, I think you got it right the first time. Some architects make aesthetic pieces that happen to also be shelter; others are construction project managers who happen not to be operative builders. Some people who call themselves builders, or called themselves housewrights, were driven by esthetics. "Artist" and "architect" don't overlap completely; I'd argue not even mainly. Now, as I've said, McIntire is not a good example of this; he built works of beauty, and also was a sculptor, something firmly in the central meaning of "artist." So, where do we go with this? A lot of wasted bytes here on unneeded and misleading duplication. Anmccaff (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's Kiwicentric, but that's because evidently the last guy to put effort into it lived in New Zealand. I'll probably look into the article in more detail once I do something with "Seacoast defenses of the United States", and there are a few things on my plate ahead of that. I and my references are US-centric, and I have only basic knowledge (mostly from Wikpedia) outside the US. I have J. E. Kauffmann's "Fortress Europe", but that's only forts active in WWII. I hadn't heard of Fort de Dailly but it sounds like another amazing Swiss fort. At some point in the last couple of weeks I glimpsed a pic of a rail-mounted disappearing gun; I think the caption said it was French and it was pretty crazy. I can't remember where I found it. On the disappearing gun article, I added and updated a number of US-related links and references, mainly Berhow's comprehensive reference guide, actually the work of many CDSG members (3rd edition coming soon). I'm a CDSG member but edit Wikipedia on my own. I'm gradually putting Berhow's info in US articles; apparently few or no previous editors have used it. The CDSG revamped their website about a year ago, with most of the old site retained in an "old" folder that of course broke all the links. The CDSG is probably the largest and most active group that focuses on disappearing gun sites, but most members are over 55 and not fully into the computer age, with a few key exceptions. I also edit US submarine class articles (I've done 1900-1960) and US destroyer class articles through WWI. My recent major article overhauls have included 8-inch M1888, 8-inch Mk. VI railway gun, 16"/50 caliber M1919 gun, and 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 gun. I also put in the bulk of US WWI info in the Railway gun article, except the 14" part. I'll probably do the 12-inch gun M1895 article soon, and will create 10-inch gun M1895. RobDuch (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the beast. ST Chamond, not Schnieder, now that I think of it. They had a gun on a disappearing carriage that rolled into a protected garage; the Swiss can do technology.

I talked with a guy named McGovern (Terrance?) about getting the stuff I'd scanned to Berhow (is that the right spelling?), never got around to it. I'm glad the other stuff has resurfaced.

I've also come across a bunch of pictures of the Krupp dissappearing carriages; very similar conceptually to the US. The thing that that New Zealand Master Gunner never got was there was a fundamental divide between the German, US,and some French designs on the one hand; and the British and other French designs on the other. After the early Montcrief siege pieces, the Brit stuff was all bleeding edge. The Buffington Crozier was trailing edge, and reliable as hell because of that. If you get down to it, it was essentially a cannon on a trebuchet.Anmccaff (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ISTR you made a Fort Ebey article. It seems to have disappeared, with only a sentence at Fort Ebey State Park to remember it by. The Fort Whitman article is a good start. I never submit articles for creation, I just create them. Then somebody patrols them within 24-48 hrs and blesses them off. RobDuch (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, asking for official "help" seldom pays around here. Yeah, I dug up a bunch of stuff on Ebey, but I'm damned if I can find it. Anmccaff (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it I was remembering your Fort Whitman article, and confusing it with a mention of Fort Ebey. At the rate I'm going it'll be a long time til I get to Puget Sound fort articles; I had a Northeastern thing going and I'm planning to proceed geographically, with New York next. My next major effort will be re-editing US submarine class articles to move cites and some info out of the infobox and into the body of the article, as required by one of the few policies of WP:Ships that gets enforced. I want to do this before somebody else comes through and screws it up by just taking an axe to the infobox, as happened with the D-boats. I'm quite grateful that Wiki preserves each version of an article intact, it allows reconstruction when needed. I'll never know why people edit (or complain about) one article of a type and move on, without doing something similar for other articles. I'm also contemplating an article for each Harbor Defense Command (neatly dovetailing with my article of the same title), outlining the overall history of the fort situation in each AOR. But that's a BIG project. RobDuch (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the Fort Whitman stuff was sourced to Parks Services books on Fort Ebey. Ebey's an odd duck, in a way, because it was never much more than the gun positions, and much of the visible, aboveground part of that was steel...and hence long since melted.

There's a master's thesis out there for someone looking at the benefits of being second-best in fortification: steel makes the best anti-tank obstacles, but it has high scrap value, and tends to disappear the second there isn't an immediate need seen for it. Concrete is nowhere as good: it provides too much cover behind it, and it's vulnerable to low explosives....but you build it, and its scrap value is too low to bother taking it out. The tetrahedrons were gone from the Westwall and the Sudetenland defenses when they were actually needed, but the dragon's teeth remained. Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The last 2-3 weeks I've been working on Cruiser (with some work on Frigate and Destroyer leader). My work on Cruiser so far is as follows: Mid-20th-C: most of intro, Heavy cruiser subsection. Late 20th C: Most of intro, all of US and Soviet cruiser development. I've been mired in developing a World War II section for Cruiser the last two weeks. It's in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobDuch/sandbox . The "My email" section is just notes. I have the problem of getting too far in the weeds in describing why BBs played little part in Pacific surface actions, and in my descriptions of cruiser battles. I suppose I need to prune each battle to about 2 sentences, like I did for the Brit engagements. I also plan at least a list of cruiser/battlecruiser battles for WWI. Anyway, that's what I've been doing. RobDuch (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I finally posted the Cruiser/WWII section at Cruiser#World War II. RobDuch (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Not bad at all, that. Biting the bullet on the German demi-battleships, cruisers in all but name, as you accurately wrote, is an essential point.

I wonder if there isn't something more to be said about the Hood in the same light; the ship was seen, especially abroad, as a battleship in all but name, which made her loss more momentous, and may have put her farther in harms way than was smart.

Apologies for the slow response. Anmccaff (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I finally read enough to realize why the Scharnhorsts were so over-protected (13.8 inch belt armor versus Bismarck at 12.6 inch). They were intended for six 38 cm guns, but these weren't ready soon enough, so they used the triple 28 cm turrets instead. However, even as intended, they would be more battlecruiser than battleship. They were only about 4,000 tons heavier at full load than the Alaskas. They're the only operational ship design I can think of to sacrifice armament for protection. There was some effort made towards converting the stricken Gneisenau to the heavier guns after the Channel dash, but that fell apart when Hitler decided surface ships were useless. RobDuch (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

One general point that I'm not sure the German vs. Brit comparison always capture was the differences that having a ship intended for world-wide peacetime service required. Gneisenau was a fighting machine, Hood was...home. A professional expected to spend large amounts of time at sea or on foreighn station had to dedicate a lot of space to livable areas; a fleet intended to menace an opponent close-by did not. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking up Hood and QE briefly, Hood gains 7 knots at the cost of only 1" belt armor but is 14k tons heavier. Surprisingly for a post-Jutland design, Hood retains the ridiculous 3" deck armor of QE. So Hood has good protection except against plunging fire, thus is very close to a fast BB. RobDuch (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Close, yeah, but still Not Kwite Rite. I think of Hood as rather similar, in a sense, to Constitution. Meant to kill anything that could catch it. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The KGV class could be said to sacrifice armament for protection, but this was due to a politically motivated limit to 14" guns. HMS Vanguard also, in my view, sacrifices armament for protection due to the recycled WWI guns (compared with proposed Lion class), though has slightly less protection than KGV. RobDuch (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between Rubber-tyred tram and Rubber-tyred tram. The former goes to a specific section of the target article, Guided bus, and the later does not. The British spelling is not useful in this case. Peter Horn User talk 22:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be good, though, to find a new way to express the difference, and one that isn't ambiguous, with different meanings seen by most speakers of North American English and British English. Anmccaff (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you please answer my argument on Talk:Trolleybus#Disadvantages -- comparison to tram? Thank you.George Leung (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have anythign else to add, please go to the talk:trolleybus. What you are doing is vandalism. At the minimum, fix your grammar while you are reverting. Thank you. George Leung (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that your dislike my edit on stating the disadvantage of road-based restriction is a non-issue if a city/transit planner are planning to replace the bus route with either a trolleybus or a tram/light rail, due to the roads the trolleybus will run on already exist. So why is that wrong?George Leung (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever dealt in laymen's term? How is narrower loading gauge going to help if all the system will just reuse existing roads and bridges and tunnels? You need to explain it (eg: dedicated ROW).

Well, you actually did explain on the talk page (namely that benefit is for dedicated right of way). Yet you refused to put it into the article, so I put it in myself, until you revert it, saying it's inaccurate. So what is it, then? I know what I read.

The way you keep snarking at me implied that the people read this article know what you are saying. That's like saying the people who approve the budget for transits know what you are saying, but often it's not. It may be a guy who smoke crack every other night and only know there's a road there, but he's the one that decide which option is better, which is not based on engineering terms but in budget and laymen's explaination.

If you want to, I can quote it directly from the talk page and apply it to the article.

Also, a dead horse is not dead until it's atomized and unpersoned. George Leung (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't take my words -or anyone's - out of an appropriate context and dump them elsewhere. If someone writes something on the talk page, that is probably where it should stay, unless they want to post it, or you want to research it, validate it, and put it up yourself, in your own words. Anmccaff (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote is what I researched, validated, and put it up myself in my own word (EDIT: The earlier ones, not the recent one). Nonetheless, the talk page is all about setting up collaboration, and resolve disputes, so we do not need to go into a 3RR situation. Heck, it outright state on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages: Share material.George Leung (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, you are more than welcome to help out. I would appreciate a touch more effort to be collaborative instead of adversarial, but your input is welcome. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Nonsense, user:Sergecross73. A very normal BRD, with an editor whose competence problems cripple his ability to do so -discuss, that is. user:Salvidrim should have explained his conduct meaningfully -which I suspect might have been a difficult task, under the circumstances - before merely restoring his mistake. If you see this otherwise, then open it at ANI, as I will myself if I don't hear form you. Anmccaff (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC) I'm counting 3 reverts by you, which is objectively and fundamentally not following WP:BRD. You're also far too eager to take things to ANI - your last report there was thrown out of ANI because WP:DRV was a more appropriate venue, and if I were to report you for edit warring, WP:ANEW would be the place for that. Please familiarize yourself with some more of Wikipedia's noticeboards - not every issue warrants a trip to ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Then bring it there, unless you would prefer I do. Anmccaff (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC) You're not making any sense - why would you file a report to ANEW? You'd report yourself? Anyways, if you actually read the warning you're complaining about, you'd know it wouldn't make sense for either of us to be there right now. It was a warning that you're close to violating WP:3RR. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to go there if you haven't broken 3RR yet. If you reverted a 4th time, that would be entirely different, that would definitely lead to you getting a block. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Yeah. Go on, run it up, and see what they make of it. I'd especially be interested in hearing what they think on one-sided templating, and adding a stale template. Anmccaff (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Are you even reading what I'm saying? I just said it doesn't make sense to go there yet. In fact, your whole theory of "if its worth templating, it's worth opening" (a report on) is fundamentally flawed. If you warn someone, and there's no further disruption, then there's no reason to file a report. You haven't reverted a fourth time, so there's nothing to report. You really need to learn what you're talking about before you go on the offensive like this... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Yes. You? I raised the point of one-sided templating, and stale templating. Both of those rather look like taking a side. Anmccaff (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, I hadn't addressed those points because they were dependent on a scenario (me reporting you to ANEW) that wasn't going to occur. But if you insist - I didn't warn Salv because he had already just directly acknowledged he was getting close to edit warring. A warning wouldn't have served any purpose - he already knew. Your argument about "stale templating" also holds no weight, considering your last revert was today, just a couple hours ago, which wouldn't be considered "stale" considering the timescale for WP:3RR is 24 hours, we we were (and still are) well within that window of time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC) So, a message that suggest a burst of deletes and restores is over should be taken as a signal to template one of the parties after the fact? I'll just let that loquitate for its own damned ipsa, thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC) To break it down for you: I did not warn the editor who reverted twice and already acknowledged his fault. I did warn the editor who showed who reverted 3 times and made no acknowledgement of their fault. (Something I stand by as necessary, considering your first reaction was to say you were just following BRD, which was objectively incorrect.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Repeating yourself changes nothing. Perhaps you could squat under a different bridge. Anmccaff (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Nothing needs to be changed. Nothing wrong was done, and your approval is not needed. Nothing more needs to be said unless you edit war further. I'll leave you be unless/until that happens. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Of, course, of course. Don't hit your head on the stringers. Anmccaff (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That CR source does not include the G-class, only the M, GL, and GLK, so it does not support the claim that its mediocre in snow and flooded conditions. A75 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

re: Land battery AFD: I moved the content (merged) into Coastal Artillery, which you should have just done. Sorry I got annoyed, but AFD (any xFD's) often brings up things best left alone.

Unless such edits are likely to be controversial, BOLD suggests AFD nominations are a way to get someone else to do the necessary grunt work.

IMHO, but it's the only one I have to go with! The Land battery (edit talk links history) links should be individually checked to see if any are redundant with 'See Also' links also showing 'Coastal Artillery' but that is hardly necessary. As I noted, peoples thinking differs by terms ALWAYS, none of us think the same associations. THey are often colorized by what we each have read recently, for one thing. Can't tell you how often I see things which need edited because the writer is thinking in a particular channel and ignoring other interpretations or meanings. Happens a lot with stuff put up by younger editor sans a few decades experiences reading diverse topics.

Elsewhere, should you have time to act as an editor... the referenced links in para contexts should each be checked. Note in my merge I incorporated your 'water battery' distinction, though ignored the equivalent 'sea battery'. Perhaps you'd care to improve my edit. Best regards, and again, apologies for demonstrating my irritations. // FrankB 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fabartus:, I've reverted the redirect pending the AfD conclusion. This article doesn't belong as a redirect; it doesn't belong at all. Anmccaff (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2016 (U

Below is a summary of my most recent contributions to the General Motors streetcar conspiracy talk page.

I have reverted your most recent changes to General Motors streetcar conspiracy and its talk page. My edit summaries explained the purpose of the edits made. You have reverted an edit without regard to the reason it was edited and again used argumentum ad hominem in your edit summary. Further, you have yet again edited another contributor's addition to a talk page.

As seen throughout your user history, your edits show disregard for NPOV, frequent attempts to tarnish the character of your ideological opposition through use of weasel words, disregard for Wikipedia's dispute process, participation in multiple edit wars, argumentum ad hominem rather than the expected argumentum ad rem, use of dubious tags, and—in my opinion—systematic bias for transportation tycoons and against their employees & customers.

— 173.27.99.140, Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy

Due to the number time you have committed previously unnoticed sneaky vandalism I am adding a vandalism 3 warning to this page:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at General Motors streetcar conspiracy, you may be blocked from editing.

Furthermore, when skimming through your edits I noticed your tendency to post all day long. This in combination with the topically narrow field of your edits have led to the connected contributor template I have added to the top of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy talk page.--173.27.99.140 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is one way of putting a sock in it, no? Anmccaff (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter:, as a former admin who took an interest in the thread, what do you think, both procedurally and otherwise, about re-opening it? EdJ*hnst*n -that's not just a noping, but a nowayping, I've bothered him already -whose good sense and judgement I have a good bit of respect for, seems to feel that it has died a natural death, and I should proceed more along DRN/RfC, &cet; I see the principal problems as behavioural, and on a path through ANI to ARBCOM; if so, it's better to strike when the iron is hot.

Thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think I would avoid ArbCom in this matter. DRN and/or RfC probably do seem the better way to go. Unfortunately, if it went to ArbCom, the behavior of everyone involved would be examined, and there seems to be some basis for thinking that your own might not be above scrutiny. Based on what I can see, the South Beach diet being considered to be a fad diet probably qualifies as a form of pseudoscience as per the existing ArbCom restrictions on that subject, and my guess is that any appeal to ArbCom would most likely have that made a bit more explicit, with maybe a summary ruling only. I don't honestly see that ArbCom is likely to do much else about it under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter:, I'm curious where you'd get the "pseudoscience' from. Since the Nurse's Study results, most of the concerns about lower-carb diets being universally unhealthy were pretty well laid to rest. We now have the Chan School of Public Health recommending a diet based on on the aspects of SB that were controversial. See this piece by Ludwig, for example. An excerpt:

Carbohydrates have been a hot topic in nutrition for decades – two popular “fad” diets were the Atkins diet and the South Beach Diet, both of which limited carbohydrate consumption. Is it possible that these diets actually had some substance behind the hype?

The fastest way to stabilize blood glucose and lower insulin levels is to reduce carbohydrate. The Atkins and South Beach Diets achieved great popularity during the low-fat craze by offering an effective antidote to all the processed carbohydrate in the American diet. For many people, these low carbohydrate diets have produced tangible benefits, for sound scientific reasons.

That, I'd submit, is the actual mainstream take on lower-carb diets, and has been for about a decade. Anmccaff (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for about two years now, and have racked up just over 4,000 edits so far. I noticed that you've edited numerous articles on various subjects, and I have a couple of questions. Feel free to direct me to someone else if needed. You may notice that I've never read a Wikipedia style guide of any kind. 1. Where can I submit words for inclusion in Wikipedia's dictionary? Numerous perfectly good words such as "casemate" are red-flagged, and I've had the unpleasant experience of editing articles that were modified solely to remove red-flagged words, resulting in poor grammar or inaccurate information. 2. What is it with the War on Capitalization? I mean, book titles are supposed to be capitalized in citations, among other things. Why is de-capitalizing even done? I am NOT directing this to you personally, there are many editors worldwide that I've noticed minimizing the use of capital letters. Thanks for your time. RobDuch (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Man, this is backwards in some ways. Just for instance, I think that's at least double the number of edits I've done recently. Checking, the edit utility gives me 1616. I had another username a few years before, long forgotten, and edited some stuff back when being an IP Editor wasn't seen as a low crime or misdemeanor, but not a whole helluva lot.

I'm capable of forgetting Wiki's editing tools if I don't use them for even a few days running. Sometimes it pops back into my head later, but not so I can count on it. You are better at much of this, I'd bet, than I am.

I'm also...I dunno. Insubordinate isn't quite the right word, but a lot of Wiki-speak strikes me as pretentious folderol. Yeah, most of the time, most people are trying to do the right thing, but sometimes the only way to "Assume Good Faith" is to get an ice pick and give yourself a home lobotomy. Yeah, ideas should reflect good expert consensus, but that doesn't mean that connecting the dots between two obvious related facts is always Original Research, and Evil.

On the red-flagging, do you mean the underlined stuff like quergle or the highlighted stuff like gwergle? I think the underlines are connected to our own browsers, so there's absolutely no way to prevent some moron from deciding that he has to improve the article by removing an accurate, nuanced, but uncommon word. The red-flagged links? Me, I think a lot of them need re-directs. Stacking swivel is red? Then redirect it to Rifle. Dunno if that is wikikosher, but it works.

Yeah, proper nouns deserve capitalization, and so do phrases that have a meaning distinct from the words in them. Jesuit Reductions were mission communities; Jesuit reductions are clerics on a strict diet. I think the capitalization problem comes back to the Manual of Style:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Do_not_use_capitals_for_emphasis gets misinterpreted by would-be crusaders as capitals are bad_{low, even}. You have all kinds of activist editors who run around, often in packs, trying to make the place conform to their warped concepts. Asking for help about anything often lets you meet them. You ask for help about one thing, and they "fix" the real problem. I now avoid Wiki's help sites.

I've met a lot of users and admins, on the other hand, who'll take the time to answer questions. Binksternet, Bbb23, Fnlayson, EdJohnston, Margin1522, to name just a few, have been helpful answering what they were too polite to point out were sometimes stupid questions, or the same question asked again a week later.

Dunno if this was any use, and my apologies for being so late in replying. ('d all but finished a reply, and then fat-fingered something that blanked most of it.) Thanks, BTW, for all the fort editing. Anmccaff (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. For red-flagging, I mean any words underlined in red in the editor. Red links due to lack of an article are a different matter. Casemate goes to a perfectly good article, so redirection is not always the answer. I have put in numerous redirects where I think it's appropriate, and nobody's called me out. Due to what appears to be editing to remove red underlines, I've never thought the issue might be the browser, but I'll check it out. I'm sure you've noticed that I've concentrated on neglected articles about long-dead subjects with little controversy. This has kept negative comments and re-editing to a minimum. RobDuch (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting text from Wikipedia articles simply because you don't approve of it. Wikipedia is meant for everyone to read and not meant to tailor to your personal view of whats acceptable. F-16 Viper (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. We're like Willie and Joe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean we have two articles written about us, when there should only be one?

Congratulations. Anmccaff (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My error, @Hawkeye7: I thought you'd got it. Make this "commiserations." Illegitimi non carborundum. Anmccaff (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_conspiracies

You wrote in reverting the posting of the 1963 JFK murder: "HSSC claimed probable conspiracy, but absolved all the realistic suspects."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Conclusions_regarding_the_Kennedy_assassination "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President."

This would appear to refute your quoted point that does not 100% refute what the HSCA wrote in its conclusion. It doesn't matter WHO the suspects were or specifically identified. The point is the HSCA said there was a high probability that at least two gunmen fired, and that is all you need to establish a conspiracy. So, the Listing should add the JFK assassination in 1963. I would hope that would convince you to at least add it to the list. I wouldn't mind if you wanted to re-add it and put a little note afterwards saying it is a 'high probability'. Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? Also, if you don't change the HSCA page on its conclusion, it is a contradiction to not having it listed. The House committee is abbreviated as HSCA, not HSSC. Oye289 (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The list is a list of actual conspiracies, along with one presumed conspiracy with actual effects. It is not a list of speculation. Anmccaff (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Gatling is a specific rotary design. The Minigun is different specific rotary design. While the term "gatling" is sometimes used incorrectly in reference to other rotary weapons, the Minigun is most accurately described as a rotary machine gun and not as a gatling gun. --Trifler (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gatling gun article itself says that it is about the Gatling design, which was hand cranked, and to refer to the Rotary cannon article in regards to modern externally powered weapons. Personally, I think there should be a generic Rotary page since not all of them are autocannons, but the point is that "rotary" is the more correct term. --Trifler (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, several times over. First, miniguns and vulcans differ only in trifling ways conceptually from other Gatling-derived designs. Some axially rotating designs, for example, had episodic motion, not continuous, with obvious improvement in accuracy, and equally obvious detriment to speed. Next, there have been rotary designs that did not rotate on the axial, but on the horizontal. Finally, there are rotary designs which use spare barrels in sequence, rather that steadily rotating them. Anmccaff (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How is that an argument against it being a rotary? Are you disagreeing with the Gatling article's intention of moving designs that are similar to the Gatling, but are not the Gatling itself, to a separate page (such as a rotary page)? The Wiki needs something to link all multi-barrel rotary weapons together, and I think the plan was to use the rotary cannon page, but then someone protested that the Minigun isn't an autocannon, which is why I think there should be a generic rotary page. I'm just trying to understand your motivation and try to find what we can agree on and help keep things coordinated. For instance, would you accept "Gatling-style rotary machine gun"? Personally I would describe the Minigun (brand name) as "a rotary machine gun similar in design to the Gatling gun." As it is, there's nothing linking the rotary weapons together. I certainly agree that the Gatling gun was the ancestor to the Minigun, but I see that as belonging in the text of the article. --Trifler (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, still sticking just to the specifics raised here, first: the gatling and the minigun are essentially the same weapon; one is a slightly modernized version of the other. The language used in development documents, patent documents, acceptance trials, &c, &c., ad naus completely reflects this. There are no conceptual differences between most of a minigun's parts and those of a gatling. It is -not- a "different rotary design," it is 50 years updating on an old one. "Ancestor" implies a greater separation.

Next, far from being "the most correct term," "rotary" is largely a wishy-washy catchall. The term was used for weapons that did not rotate around an offset to the bore, was used for weapons which rotated spare barrels, and used for step-and-stop weapons which did not rotate continously. Oddballs like the first were rare, but the latter two were dominant at various times.

Finally, note that every weapon actually covered in the least depth in the rotary cannon article is also described as a gatling. That says something. Anmccaff (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If a minigun actually *was* a gatling, it would be called a gatling, not a minigun. More to the point, we're talking about the *type* of weapon, not the specific weapon. So, a more general term is what we want. Just like we're calling it a type of machine gun. Again, we want to use the term rotary to link all weapons that use rotating barrel arrangements. I ask you, can you live with "Gatling-style rotary machine gun"? I am willing to accept that compromise, but I am not willing to not have rotary at all. --Trifler (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Itis called a gatling, at tedious length, in better sources. It's only as you head away from patents and manuals and scholarly work into fanboidom -which describes too much of wikipedia - that that becomes less clear. It's not, of course, a Gatling, proper tradename. Now, wiki is supposed to be based on sources; hitting googlescholar with "gatling" and "mingun" gets 210 hits by the look of it, amd most appear solid; your phrase gets...3, 2 of which are false positives. No, when we have a category that is entirely composed of a subcategory - all of the examples are gatling derivative - it calls into question why we have that category at all. Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

My honest opinion is that there is a trend in weaponry circles to move away from the term gatling and towards rotary. Clearly you disagree. However, I know all of these weapons used to be listed on the Gatling page and other Wikipedia editors (not me) decided they didn't belong there. The Gatling page was changed to be specifically about the trademarked Gatling design. You keep arguing that "gatling" is more correct, but you haven't given any reason against having both in my offer of compromise. --Trifler (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked the sources and "Seattle Municipal Street Railway" is the name given to the network.--L9A8M (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No, @L9A8M:. That's one of four possible names, three major ones. Anmccaff (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But this was the network name when it was closed--L9A8M (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No. It was then (also) "Seattle Transit". And why should the death-name be selected as "proper?" Anmccaff (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The system was named the Seattle Municipal Street Railway from 1919 to 1941, so it was from being a "death name"; it was commonly known as the "municipal street railway" and mentioned as such in The Seattle Times as early as 1917. Seattle Transit [System] is used exclusively to refer to the bus system in place from 1941 to 1973 (when Metro, later King County Metro, took over). SounderBruce 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(Nope, @SounderBruce:: 1940, roughly at the same time they decided to switch from steel to rubber...but not away from electricity; they bought more than twice as many trackless trolleys as buses. Anmccaff (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Trackless trolleys are referred to as "trolleybuses" in Seattle and are considered buses with very little distinction between the two compared to the streetcar and light rail systems. But I don't get your point, since we're talking about the name of the system, for which you've provided no arguments supporting your opinion. SounderBruce 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. That depends rather heavily on the age and profession of the Seattle-ite. Compare usages in any newspaper archive over time. Regarding the name change, see this, or this, or .... Anmccaff (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Remind me of the context? Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@FlieGerFaUstMe262:, a discussion about the proper name for John Cantius's semi-auto rifle.

*: Our naming conventions explicitly favour "dumbed down" article titles if they are the most commonly-used titles for the subject and they are unambiguous. It goes so far as to state that articles should not be placed at "official" titles above popular ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means, change it to "Gurrand (gun) yo".

That was you, right? Anmccaff (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep that was me, I remember now. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hornwork

added a link pointing to Cyclopaedia

Reinhard Gehlen

added a link pointing to German

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What is an Underwater Engineer Tractor? Sounds like a potential new article, even if only a stub. Peter Horn User talk 22:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The M9 ACE was originally called the UET, "Universal Engineer Tractor", which the Army had been slowly building support for in a very reluctant Congress, which felt that the increased cost over commercial equipment was unjustified. Just when it looked like some money would be appropriated to fund the UET, a demonstration of its swimming prowess went spectacularly wrong. A UET sank at Tompkins Basin, if memory serves, before a bleacher stand full of HASC members and other decisionators. It rapidly acquired a new acronym.

There are, however some real underwater tractors, Komatsu's is probably the best known, and fording kits have been around for even longer. Anmccaff (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Thanks for the comment.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Percy L. Jones, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Omni Flames (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the IP editor working on the article is HughD. Just FYI. His block has been lifted but this article MIGHT count as politics related. Springee (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, @Springee:. One of the nastier aspects of socking is that it wakens our reptilian brain stems, and pretty soon we are seeing them where they ain't. I think this might be a false alarm. Hugh never did so many useful edits -despite his (her?) penchant for identifying everything as self-published, the IPer's edits overall are probably worthwhile, or would be if he engaged in discussion on the talk page, instead of merely repeating himself. Also, HughD would not have been able to make this many posts without reverting to the peculiar stilted language he uses as boilerplate. Anmccaff (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My suspicion is based in part on behavior but also because the IP is yet another Amazon Technologies series of IP addresses. I agree that this isn't proof positive and so far the IP edits are generally reasonable. It will be interesting to see if this follows the pattern that we saw with the Pinto article. Like the Pinto article before it was the subject of such attention, I do think the current version of the streetcar article could use some real help. Springee (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you could be right; was Hugh ever able to geolocate out to London? Perhaps, too, that's the reason why there's so little discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of rambling BS you were thinking about [[1]]

Incidentally, here is where I explain why I think this is just HughD using an Amazon based proxy service. [[2]] Springee (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In retrospect, @Springee:, and after seeing the stuff on other pages, I think you called it right. Given that a fair amount of its last stuff on the "Streetcar" page was inaccurate attacks on sources, do you think it's justified to simply remove it? Anmccaff (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the only people who weren't convinced it was HughD were the ones who wanted extra votes in their camp. I'm hoping the SPI will be reopened since my March 7th case didn't actually result in a ruling rather a punt. Anyway, in looking at the street car article I think it was rather classic HughD. Most of the tags, especially those from January are legit. Many of the citations are old and from the days when just a link was typically sufficient. If Hugh's intent was improving things he would fix those links... of course we saw how that worked in the Pinto article. I would support pulling the questionable ones but leave/fix ones that are legitimate. I certainly won't come to the defense of our IP editor but I will respect the suggestion of The Wordsmith and refrain from removing edits. Springee (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I Like cows with chainsaws. Sweaters are The good.

Poetry, that am. Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oath Keepers. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be substituting an inaccurate warning template for substantive discussion on the talk page, @VQuakr: If you see it otherwise, then open it at AN3 now. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr is right. Low level edit warring is still edit warring. You're not helping your case. Please stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw your rather bizarre and quite unnecessary post at ANI. [3], [4], and [5] are reverts, hence the reminder above. Don't edit war. WP:NPOV/N would be a much better forum to bring concerns if you think local consensus is at odds with policy. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oath Keepers. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be substituting an inaccurate warning template for substantive discussion on the talk page, @VQuakr: If you see it otherwise, then open it at AN3 now. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr is right. Low level edit warring is still edit warring. You're not helping your case. Please stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw your rather bizarre and quite unnecessary post at ANI. [6], [7], and [8] are reverts, hence the reminder above. Don't edit war. WP:NPOV/N would be a much better forum to bring concerns if you think local consensus is at odds with policy. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page with the bullshit warnings.

I request that you do not post to my talk page in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I would request that you not vandalize articles because of pique...as long as you do so, you'll get the appropriate warnings, so the ANI filing is cleaner. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? Some of the info on those pages was already tagged as uncited for over a year. That was not done by me, but by others. The info is unsourced and should be given an in-line citation or removed. That is what the {{fact}} tags are for. Sagecandor (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I have instead noted where it would be helpful for our WP:Readers first to have in-line citations so the reader can check the unsourced information and claims made with no cites, against hopefully better citations. Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shorty Awards shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sagecandor (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Vanamonde (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think it appropriate to block someone for reverting anonymous, possibly socked POV-pushing against consensus, @Vanamonde93: but YM obviously Varies. Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

POV-pushing does not fall under the exceptions to 3RR. As an experienced user, with a previous block for edit-warring, I'd expect you to know this. What was so problematic about the IPs edits that you had to revert them rather than reporting them to an admin, or asking for page protection? Or indeed simply allowing their version to stand and discussing the issue on the talk page? You opened a discussion, which was good, but then proceeded to make many more reverts anyway, which defeats the purpose. If you are not seeing the problem with the continued reverts, the block is doubly justified. [[User:|Vanamonde]] (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression was an admin participating in the conversation at the time, @Vanamonde93:; given that, why do you think I would have rushed off and found another one? Anmccaff (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because if they were participating in a content discussion, they could not act in an admin capacity; and they fact that they had failed to act should have told you something, IMO. In any case, how is the presence or absence of an admin a license to violate 3RR? Vanamonde (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling there's a fundamental disconnect in our worldviews, and that continuing this would not be useful. Goodbye. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "See talk" without a corresponding talk page explanation is poor form. 2. I will restore the FV tag if you can explain what isn't sourced on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anmccaff reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can sort out Barndominium. I immediately thought of either barns with living quarters or barns converted into single-family residences; I have some cousins living in the latter. I'm amused about the article and am up for making it work, somehow. Montanabw^(talk) 01:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I ran across this and thought you'd be interested: Unattached Companies Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. They seem to have been deployed at forts in 1864-65, although the forts could've been their muster points. Maine had "Unassigned Companies", and one was used to round out my gggrandpa's regiment, the 29th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, when their 3-year men left in Oct 1864 in the Shenandoah Valley. RobDuch (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 3rd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery and 4th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery were about the same thing, on the Coast Arty side. [Books like this] used to lurk in the stacks of all the old libraries when I was a kid; they've mostly been pulped now, odds are. Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Williford, Glen M. (2016). American Breechloading Mobile Artillery, 1875-1953. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-5049-8.
• I've just got this book and am putting some info from it into Wikipedia. It's "towed" rather than "mobile", as it doesn't include any SP or railway mountings. It starts with the BL conversion of the 3" Ordnance Rifle and ends with the M65 Atomic Cannon. It does include anti-tank guns, but no anti-aircraft guns. It has good repros of period photos, and color photos of surviving examples in almost all cases. Anyway, I started adding to the "Crime of 1916" at 75 mm Gun M1916. I noticed photos of SP mounts in the Commons category, which intrigued me. Thanks to good captions, I was led to the appropriate issues of "Field Artillery Journal" online and got more info, which I put in the article. They tested a tracked SP mount circa 1918-1920, but evidently it got nowhere. On a related note, check out this photo of weapons confiscated from the Haitian Army in 1994. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artillery-port-au-prince-19940924.JPEG There are two M1916s in the foreground, along with a bunch of 105s. RobDuch (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My brother got back to me about Arcadia, he said they should be OK to deal with if you have your manuscript(s) ready. His co-author handled most of the publishing details, and she's a bit hard to get hold of. RobDuch (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)