Contents

User talk:TheHistoryBuff101

HiTheHistoryBuff101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributionstoWikipedia.

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	for your many improvements to the grammar of image captions and similar areas. I am sorry that some editors have reacted to your valuable contributions in a way that may appear ungrateful MPS1992 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit: [1] that changed an established spelling of "US" to "U.S.", because the Manual of Style says that the spelling should be retained in this case. There were several similar edits in Gulf War. Please see MOS:US for more details, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add on to this, with the edits at United States Armed Forces - the MOS says that either US or U.S. is acceptable, so long as it’s consistent within the article. Garuda28 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda28, you are correct - in both of these specific articles, the established spelling should be retained. There are only limited cases where it can be changed, again the details are found in MOS:US. --IamNotU (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice last month you nominated the Captain Marvel article for GA status and requested that the Black Panther article be relisted. Thing is, both of those articles have issues that have been addressed in multiple GA reviews and at least one GA reassessment going back some years, and those issues really need to be addressed before either article can be promoted. Would you be interested in helping to address them? If so, I'd be glad to provide details, but if not I'd like to request that you withdraw your nomination of the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in helping address some of these issues. Keep in mind though, that I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia and I've never done a Good Article reassessment nor a nomination. I would be glad if you could show me what the issues are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryBuff101 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the key discussion pages are Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1 (where the "cast" problems were raised and caused that GAN to fail by default as they were never addressed -- the subsequent Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2 was a tendentious attempt to sneak past the clear lack of consensus to promote during the previous discussion), Talk:Black Panther (film)/GA1 (where the issue of POV-editing leading to tone problems with the articles was raised, but never addressed, as the reviewer was either a sock of a banned editor or someone with less experience than you who should never have been reviewing the article in the first place) and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Black Panther (film)/1 (where plagiarism problems led to the article being delisted).

The single biggest content problem is potential and/or actual textual plagiarism -- one of the main editors of those articles until earlier this year has an active contributor copyright investigation and the two others have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or recognize the problem, and the Black Panther article (where it first came to light) was found to have serious issues in a number of places. The problem with copyvio is that while blatantly copy-pasting an entire paragraph of text and presenting it as one's own words, as happened here, is fairly easy to catch as long as the source is available online, a lot of these articles are also WP:QUOTEFARMs, so that they are not taking a source's words and presenting them as our own, but they are also violating standard Wikipedia writing style by presenting hardly any substantial information in original prose. (WP:GAFAIL#2 and WP:GACR#1)

Other (lesser) problems include

• potential POV issues (one of the articles' main editors got very, very angry when I made a talk page comment that mentioned in an off-handed manner that children are the main audience for these films and the source of most of their revenue; the Black Panther article actually doesn't point this pretty basic fact out directly, even though much of what it does say relies on the assumptions that readers are already aware of the fact, and I suspect it might be the denialism of one editor, or a small cadre of editors, working on them) (WP:GACR#4 and kinda #3) and
• the fact that the character descriptions in the cast list are complete WP:OR based on synthesis of various films in the franchise, often being change after the films are released and they turn out to have been completely wrong (Iron Man 3, for example, used to say Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin: The leader of the international terrorist organization The Ten Rings., citing the official website and two pre-release "secondary sources" written by people who had no idea what the film was about; it now reads Ben Kingsley as Trevor Slattery: A British actor whom Killian hired to portray the Mandarin, a terrorist persona in jammed television broadcasts in which he is depicted as the leader of the international terrorist organization the Ten Rings., and cites exactly the same sources!). (WP:GACR#2)
• Additionally, as has been pointed out recently on the Captain Marvel talk page but was arguably a more serious issue with Avengers: Endgame, a lot of the poster billing is nothing but misleading, non-spoiler, marketing fluff, or the result of negotiations with major actors to work for less or get less screen time than they might otherwise claim if their name appears on the poster of a major blockbuster, and is not an objective measure of each cast member's prominence in the film itself by any measure; the articles' "owners" frequently claim that it's a neutral and incontrovertible means of avoiding people giving bullet points to their favourite actor or character, but there's actually nothing neutral about it, and once the films have been released and we have reviews by professional film critics, we really shouldn't be using that criterion. It has also never, apparently, been supported by consensus among uninvolved editors, but rather is shoehorned in as to all the articles by a small group of editors who then call it the WP:STATUSQUO (which I should point out doesn't actually apply to articles on major films that see huge floods of attention and massive changes at certain periods, and started out spending months or years in the draft space where the majority of our editors didn't even know they existed).
• There is also stability; articles that are subject to frequent tag-teaming and ownership, and either are subject to, or would be subject to if it weren't for the tag-teaming and ownership driving editors away in frustration, edit wars technically do not meet WP:GACR#5

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for both articles, it seems like I can only be able to resolve the plagiarism issues, but the rest I can't seem to do myself. Relisting Black Panther and listing Captain Marvel as good articles are going to have to be a community effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryBuff101 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck getting the community involved. It's a toxic atmosphere that I've been struggling to work in for four years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryBuff101 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Keep up the great work. But pls try to add some sort of edit summary.....something like " grammar fix " will help us and also prevent some of the reverts that people do. Moxy 🍁 04:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheHistoryBuff101,

This is to let you know that File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 30, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-30. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you please seek a consensus at the talkpage of President of the United States for the changes you wish to make? I've noticed you've been going through many world leaders pages & making bold changes, as well. Best to get agreement from other editors first. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels. In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices)......see WP:IMAGESIZE

Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.

In general, when working with images:

DO: Review the image style guide and use policy. Give context with captions and alt text. Try to find at least one image for each article. Find free images, or create and upload your own. Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc. Use the best file format for each image. Use objects for scale where helpful. Place images in the section to which they are related

DON'T: Don't upload non-free images. Don't use images in place of tablesorcharts. Don't use images or galleries excessively. Don't add images that are not relevant. Don't flip faces, text, or works of art. Don't set fixed image sizes. Don't sandwich text between two images. Don't refer to images by their placement.

Moxy- 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bypass redirects in wikilinks, as you did recently in numerous articles. The most recent example I noticed was at List of French monarchs, where you changed "[[Charles the Great]]" to "[[Charlemagne|Charles the Great]]": this is not an improvement, and has been undone per [[WP:NOTBROKEN]]. The same is true with changing "[[King of Aquitaine]]" ⟶ "[[Duchy of Aquitaine|King of Aquitaine]]", "[[Louis II the German]]" ⟶ "[[Louis the German|Louis II the German]]", "[[King of East Francia]]" ⟶ "[[List of German monarchs|King of East Francia]]", "[[Louis II the Stammerer]]" ⟶ "[[Louis the Stammerer|Louis II the Stammerer]]" and many more too numerous to list here. These have been undone, but in the future, when a redirect already links to the correct target, there is no reason to update it, and it may hurt, for various reasons explained at WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE.

The same thing is true at other articles where you bypassed redirects in wikilinks, such as:

• inthis editatRepublic of Korea Armed Forces, where you changed "[[armed forces]]" to "[[Military|armed forces]]", "[[humanitarian]]" to "[[Humanitarianism|humanitarian]]", "[[disaster relief]]" to "[[Emergency management|disaster relief]]", "[[Japanese rule of Korea]]" to "[[Korea under Japanese rule|Japanese rule of Korea]]" and many more;
• inthis editatMilitary of the Korean Empire (where you changed "[[Joseon Dynasty]]" to "[[Joseon|Joseon Dynasty]]",
• atthis editatThe Perks of Being a Wallflower (film), where you changed "[[cult classic]]" to "[[Cult following|cult classic]]", "[[European Film Market]]" to "[[Berlin International Film Festival|European Film Market]]" and others;
• atthis edit‎ in List of Waffen-SS divisions (numerous links; undone)

Most of your changes I left alone, as subsequent edits made them too difficult to undo one by one. Going forward, however, please do not make any further changes of this nature, unless it explicitly falls under one of the exceptions noted at WP:NOPIPEorWP:NOTBROKEN, and if it does, please be sure to mention it in your edit summary. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor reverted your edits from 27 October at Stab-in-the-back myth. In this edit, you bundled several different types of changes, which makes it harder for other editors to selectively remove the problematic stuff while keeping the good additions. In this case, you made numerous unnecessary changes to wikilinks:

• Jewish stereotype > Stereotypes of Jews
• German Army (German Empire) > Imperial German Army
• socialists > Socialism|socialists
• [[Jew]]s > [[Jews]]
• antisemitic > Antisemitism|antisemitic
• Quartermaster General > Quartermaster general|Quartermaster General
• Armistice with Germany|Armistice with the Allies > Armistice of 11 November 1918|Armistice with the Allies
• communist government > Communist state|communist government
• Armistice with Germany (Compiègne)|armistice > Armistice of 11 November 1918|armistice

This type of change does not improve the article and is a waste of time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please do not bypass redirects that are not broken. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise and can actually be detrimental. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are still altering links in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Please refrain from doing do as this is considered disruptive. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you are either ignoring what I'm saying, or just not reading, but you are continuing to violate WP:NOTBROKEN with your edits. If you continue with this disruptive editing you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think considering your current editing spree you need to read MOS:US. Basically in articles where U.S. has been established as the style, do not change it to US. You have been warned about this before and it seems this is just part of your continued ignoring of all aspects of the WP:MOS. At this point your violations of the MOS, against all comments and directions that are being pointed out to you (and you're a long established user who should know all this stuff by now) I'm not sure if it's willful or a competence thing. I will say though, if you continue to make edits against the MOS and other disruptive edits you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Keine Kameraden, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. The book was never published in English and has no strong ties to any English speaking country. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail fyi, I also reverted their edit on Wagner Group for MOS:TIES violation (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there's either a strong inability to get itorWP:IDHT refusal to get it. You return from a block, yet again, and immediately set about making MOS violations. MOS:ENGVAR, WP:NOTBROKEN and other disruptive edits. I've had no real choice but to block you indefinitely. The reason for this is you are immediately returning to disruptive editing after each block, and you absolutely refuse to communicate or engage the community. You make zero acknowledgement of the disruption you're causing, and since you refuse to address it can only be interpreted contempt for the community and it's policies, rules and guidelines. It's that or you simply lack the competence to edit. Due to the above, no more temporary blocks, you've been blocked indefinitely. Should you believe that you are actually capable of following the community's rules and guidelines (despite the masses of warnings on your talk page over the many years to the contrary), you may request an unblock using the information in the template below. Basically you've reached the point in your edits where you need to explain your edits, and understand why this has happened, before you can re-obtain your editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]