User talk:AzureCitizen

nominate

) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sue Sarafian Jehl

Hello AzureCitizen, how have you been?

I found another gem and her names Sue Sarafian Jehl. She's in my sandbox. Her decorations need a little bit of touching up. I would love if you can help out. I ran into something that I don't know how to express. Under her presidential unit citation it says, "(SHAEF) Supreme Headquares, Allied Expeditionary Force" I bet those are her unit names. However, how would I be able to express that on the decorations section? I hate to bug you like this all the time Azure but our articles have become a big success for good reasons! Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good, things are going well.  :) I've sorted out the decorations and will post on the Talk Page in just a minute regarding SHAEF... AzureCitizen (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Azure. I posted the article up. Everything looks good. I'll send it to DYK soon. Regards! Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Xenophrenic RfC/U

I noticed that you had some interaction with User:Xenophrenic on the David Stannard article and Talk page, and other articles. I've started an RfC/U regarding Xenophrenic's editing habits. Please feel free to participate if you have anything to add about your experiences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic

regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kizirian

Hello Azure,

I hope all is well. I stumbled upon Kizirian. What I found interesting is that he was awarded WW2 Victory Medal when he wasn't sent to the front at all. However, he did serve during the time of the war in San Diego. Should I mention that he served in WW2? I personally believe he should since he received a medal for it. What do you think? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am doing well and hope the same for you. I read the source citation that mention John Kizirian received 66 decorations and awards during his career - that's a lot! I'll respond on the article's talk page regarding the above... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dining Out redirect

A couple years ago, you created a redirect from "Dining Out" to Dining in. These are two different, although similar things. The Dining In article doesn't reflect this and really a better compromise solution could have been found. Was there any discussion before you made this redirect? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris. I've been to a number of dining in's and dining out's over several decades of service so I am familiar with the differences (and have played the role of Mr. Vice when I was a junior officer). I don't recall any discussion back in April 2010; I made the redirect because the dining out article was a stub with no references and the essential concept was already contained (with bolding) in the lede of the dining in article: "An optional formal dinner, known as the dining-out may include spouses and other guests. The dining-out follows the same basic rules of the dining-in, but is often tailored to minimize some of the military traditions and be more interesting to civilian guests." I don't think it's really worthwhile to have a separate stub when the overall umbrella concept for dining in's, dining out's, mess nights, regimental dinners, etc., is well covered in the existing article. Do you think it would be worth building a fully fleshed out dining out article (with references) in this situation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with the concept that they should all be consolidated into one article. I would suggest that perhaps a more general article title like "military balls and dining functions" could have been used instead. While the sentence in the lead section helps specify that the dining out is similar, I think it connotes all these events as being a dining-in. I guess if there was no discussion for a redirect then no alternatives were considered. I can start a discussion on a name change and rectify the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, a more general article title might help facilitate that and then redirects could be arranged to point all the specific titles (like dining in, dining out, etc.) to that article. I'm actually overseas right now and just happened to get online today to take care of some things, so I may not participate till later. All good... AzureCitizen (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Duckworth RfC

Just letting you know that I initiated an RfC regarding Duckworth's DOB: Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#RfC_on_providing_full_date_of_birth. Cheers, Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy article

Do you think "he slept with a gun under his pillow" in his introduction is necessary? The same wording is repeated in his Post-war trauma section. It implies he slept with the gun lifelong otherwise it wouldn't be in the introduction. Gun talk like this in the introduction may lead some vets with PTSD to put guns under their pillows since Murphy did. I got ________ in the Talk section over this gun issue, maybe you have something to say, if you can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YahwehSaves... I've been travelling for the last week so I didn't have time to respond to your post until now. With regard to whether or not the lead should contain the item on the gun/pillow/PTSD, it appears from the Talk section that this is a matter of some longstanding disagreement and removing it is opposed. If I may suggest, I think your best course of action would be to start an

WP:RfC on the article talk page and see if others have a different opinion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, AzureCitizen. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

User:SudoGhost) 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Understandably, there is much confusion over when the dishonorable discharge will take place. It will most likely happen within three to six months after all appeals are finalized. When a Soldier is sentenced to prison and a punitive discharge, the execution of the discharge is temporarily stayed pending an automatic appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) where the dishonorable discharge will be reviewed along with the prison term. Hypothetically, that decision could then be appealed under discretionary review to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). During this process, however, the soldier will remain a Private/E-1 incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and will be what AR 190-47 Chapter 3-1 calls a "sentenced prisoner". Later, after review of the dishonorable discharge is complete by the ACCA (and the CAAF, potentially), the dishonorable discharge will be ordered to be executed by the General Court Martial Convening Authority exercising jurisdiction over the soldier. At that time, instead of being an incarcerated Private/E-1, the prisoner will become a discharged former soldier who continues to be incarcerated at a military prison as an inmate until completion of the sentence. So... to sum things up, Manning is still a soldier, and will continue to be so for some time while incarcerated, but will most likely be dishonorably discharged before the prison term is complete. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On review, I agree that text citing the Huffington Post should be removed. However the section that remains covers the Businessweek article and isnt descriptively headed by the lable "Amenities." The article cited raises a broad range of issues, including questions on financing, impropriety in contracts with vendors and administrator salaries, and questionable academics, not just "amenities." Needs a broader heading. If you object to "criticism" how about "challenges in the press?"--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your Talk Page - you'll find my comments there. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive changing the title to "Amenities " and moving the section to the bottom of the article obscures the issue, and it would be better left in current position with a neutral but descriptive heading. Thanks for looking at it. KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba has not addressed the weight issue at all. I waited some time for a valid reason for why these events are significant to her career in the larger sense and their continued response is "These are RS". While I don't want to edit war it doesn't appear that Gaba actually wants to discuss the weight aspect. You would have to agree that her feud with Morgan is nothing at all, especially now that he no longer even has that show. The Akin stuff is equally meritless. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arzel. I agree the stuff is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, not very significant, etc. I tried to word the entries themselves to be as neutral-POV and fact-oriented as possible (they were originally slanted against Loesch). What I care about most is ensuring that the text isn't written in a disparaging tone as it's a BLP. With regard to WP:WEIGHT, my understanding of weight is that it matters when we're talking about competing perspectives on what the mainstream and non-mainstream views of something are. For example, in a discussion on whether or not the Earth is round or flat, appropriate weight needs to be given to the views. With regard to Loesch, what happened with Akin and with Piers Morgan isn't really about weight. These events just happened to occur in the course of the subject's career, and they are just trivial in that sense (keep them in or drop them, no big deal) rather than being a WP:WEIGHT problem mandating their removal. If I may say, I sense that one of the conflicts going on here is that one of you may be somewhat anti-Loesch's politics, and the other positive-Loesch politics, and that the real argument devolves down to a sense of whether or not these items are seen as a positive or a negative when viewing the subject. Assuming I'm correct, I'm not quite sure what we can do about that to make everyone satisfied with the content. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call myself pro-Loesch. I would call myself anti-BLP attacking. I appreciate your attempt to remove the NPOV and BLP issues, but what is left is meaningless as the whole context for their original inclusion was to attack Loesch. The Morgan part is particularly worthless. There is no long term historical value, it doesn't even go into why it was an issue because it would have been undue weight. The Akin stuff is equally meaningless. No one seems to care about that twitter other than the left which was in the middle of trying to destroy Akin at the time to the point that anyone that said anything that could be remotely viewed as defending Akin was to be attacked as well. WP has enough partisan bitching on BLP articles, they should be reserved for truly significant issues. Loading up articles with insignificant "apparently negative" trivia quickly reaches a point where it is clear that the point of the BLP is to attack the subject. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but it's fine for that editor to revert/delete/walk over my work, correct?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever an editor makes good faith efforts to improve an article (in this case, more than two dozen individual edits), and you find that you disagree with some of the material, it would be better to re-edit the specific material you disagree with rather than mass-revert everything. If same situation were to happen with something you'd worked on, I would gladly return the courtesy. Make sense now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I will give some thought to participating again there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your input is needed at the General Barrow site and Chesty Puller site. The main problem is the retroactive Combat Action Ribbon. The demand is for a written source. My view is not every sentence in an article requires a source so how can every military ribbon require a source when you know the guy(s) qualifies for it from other given sources. The WW2 Campaign Medal and Victory Medal for example, if you know the guy was in WWII (and has combat decorations in article) but their is no source verifying those awards in the article that he was awarded those (like so many because he was out of the service and didn't get some awards), is the article not supposed to allow those (in this case 2 CARs for Barrow and Puller, WWII and Korea) because he maybe didn't apply to get those? YahwehSaves (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the thread that I think you're referring to, currently seen here I believe. I can appreciate that you're striving to get it "right" and awards/decorations/devices on biographies of late persons present peculiar problems like this because we often don't have the proper sourcing to go off of, yet we have a pretty good hunch that something should or shouldn't be based off of experience and deduction. Unfortunately, when there is a conflict over one of those questions, the rules of Wikipedia support the position that without sourcing, challenged content is to be removed. In those cases, whether or not something is truly correct loses out to whether or not it is truly verifiable. It can be an unsatisfying result, but at the end of the day it's necessary for the Encyclopedia's stability and legitimacy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AzureCitizen, Long time no hearing from you. It's Proudbolsahye. I forgot to mention to you that I changed my username. I'm still very much appreciative of the work you have helped me with when it came to the various articles I have worked on with you. Anyhow, just wanted to stop by and say hello. Happy editing! Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Étienne Dolet! I didn't realize you'd undergone a name change, but I'll remember that going forward. Glad I was able to help with those articles and I find that work enjoyable.  :) I would have responded to your comment sooner but I've been away on service duties and only recently returned home. Take care, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have been provided with a direct Wikipedia guideline that says that there are some circumstances for which it is OK to have a criticism section spelled out. You have to specify exacly why you think that the guideline does not apply. You cannot just express opposition, which is all that you've done so far. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from dinner, hence the delay in responding (although I don't think I'll be on Wikipedia too much more for tonight). If you want to precise and specify things exactly, you should take note that WP:CSECTION isn't actually even a guideline, it's just an essay. However, even if WP:CSECTION was a guideline (or going even further, an actual policy), the overall WP:CSECTION is stressing that we should generally avoid creating sections focused on criticisms, and the sentence you have quoted on says "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title..." (bolded for emphasis). Thus, it's up to editors and local consensus to weigh that aspect and decide whether or not creating a criticism section is appropriate. I've invited others to join in (and suggested you employ WP:THIRD or RfC if they do not) because I suspect our current 1:1 disagreement will quickly clear up if other editors think creating a criticism section is a good idea (or a bad one). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up the fact that

WP:CSECTION is not policy, you are weakening your argument. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

We're talking about an editorial decision on whether or not to create a section header here (a bit of stretch to call it "content", as if it were sentences or paragraphs of reliably sourced and relevant content material that I was deleting)... nonetheless, I must disagree with your claim that I have to show keeping the content in question is a violation of Wikipedia policy. We use editorial discretion all the time on whether or not we think should something should be included or not included; if one editor adds something and another disagrees with it and removes it, there is no requirement that the editor who removes it to prove that it violated a Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you'd like to show me a policy that says otherwise? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize again that you cannot use the fact that the essay says "may" to block the section heading. I made the claim that the requirements for the section heading have been satisfied, so you have to make an argument why my claims do not conform to the essay. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're simply incorrect on that point. I will continue to exercise my editorial judgment that we do not need to create a criticism section in the article; if you think I am somehow violating a policy in this regard, please feel free to refer me to it and/or take this issue up on the appropriate noticeboard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your oversight in the Joel Fuhrman article. There seems to be fairly little investment in countering some of the scurrilous namecalling. I think that the article needs a team of writers who would adopt the article and dramatically improve it. MaynardClark (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for such an untimely reply, I've had very little spare time to devote to Wikipedia for the last few weeks. While I certainly don't espouse the views of the subject myself, I think there has been a tendency for some editors to push for including negative material, which speaks more to their own POV rather than building a quality BLP. BLPs are supposed to be written conservatively and err on the side of caution, hence anything involving namecalling and labeling should be screened out if possible. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You closed without comment a conversation in which you were not involved. Dunno your reasoning but I've reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious that the thread was deteriorating into pointless bickering and personal attacks; as an uninvolved editor, summarily closing it was an attempt to get the participants to let it go. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also are interested in the Walsh case. I think it's fascinating case but it's impossible to tell the whole story inside the Walsh BLP. Clearly, I would include more there than others, but at best it's only a question of where to draw the line. Writing within a BLP, there is always going to be a balance issue. But in a breakout article, where the subject is the clearly notable topic of the "John Walsh plagiarism scandal", the whole thing can be about just that topic. New article, new rules on balance, it appears to me. We could write more freely about the timeline of what happened, the NYT evidence, initial responses, effect on the campaign and the protocols at the War College, etc. At that point, I'd happily support still more trimming in John Walsh. (To me, John Walsh the person isn't at all interesting. How the plagiarism incident played out is.) I think there's an interesting story here, loads of fabulous sources, and an article that can be written within the guidelines. Since creating a breakout would obviously make certain people very unhappy, I've posted some additional thoughts and sought advice at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#John Walsh (U.S. politician) plagiarism scandal. Perhaps you would care to comment. Better still, what I'm really hoping is that you might also be interested to help create the article. Msnicki (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLP applies to all articles, breakout or not so your assumption that different rules would somehow apply is faulty. Also as mentioned elsewhere given the consensus on the talk page against splitting the article, the creation of the article anyways would be disruptive - you should be engaging with the half-dozen other editors involved there, not circumventing them. Please note that I am not necessarily opposed to expanded coverage of the plagiarism scandal in the main article; I just oppose addition of the material in article space while it is still under discussion per BLP's requirement for caution. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And as I said to you at

WP:NPOVN, I have heard your opinion, which is exactly why I've been seeking advice. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The applicability of BLP is not an opinion; it is expressly stated in the policy. Why did you state that it would not apply if you had already seen my clarification? VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion that your interpretation is correct. But my opinion is different and I'm entitled to mine as well. I think it should be possible to write a compliant breakout article on the topic but I know that would make you and others very unhappy, so I'm seeking advice before I decide what to do. If you have additional arguments, perhaps you might present them at the NPOVN discussion for broader consideration. Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks... I got back online a little while ago and saw the above, and tried to read up on all the posts regarding the breakout article issue. I can see that it's fairly contentious right now and people have strong opinions about this. I don't know what the outcome of an RfD would be, or if the material is well suited to creating a comprehensive and worthwhile encyclopedia article. I don't particularly want to get dragged into the fray, and often don't have time to edit Wikipedia extensively (this morning was an exception), but I would offer this piece of advice (if advise is being sought): you may want to consider creating the article in sandbox space rather than starting it out in main space where apparently it will trigger a lot of controversy. Then you can build it up into something more developed, with potential input from editors both in favor of and against it, that can transitioned to main space with a lot less acrimony after people see it fleshed out first. Would that resolve everyone's concerns and provide a path forward in figuring out whether or not a breakout article is the right choice? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind. :) What I'm trying to do now is figure out the exact boundaries of what can be written and how such that a breakout would not violate our guidelines. Once I think I have a good handle on that, I'm expecting I would start with a draft of my proposed article in my own user space and invite others to provide feedback before moving it into article space. As you observe, this is a contentious topic so I'm anxious to figure out where I'm solid ground and where, not so much. Msnicki (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the correct location to have the discussion is the article talk page. The non-process skirting way to handle this is as a

WP:SPLIT, because the content needs to be due in the main article for it to be due in a daughter article. If Msnicki feels that the viewpoints on the article talk page are not diverse enough, dispute resolution methods such as WP:DRN or a request for comment are the path forward. Thanks for your work on the article, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Msnicki: I just do not see how you feel that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." can be characterized as an opinion or interpretation. That is a direct quote from Wikipedia policy. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your PoV at Pat Quinn's infobox. However, it's been the practice for years, to include the elected or designated successor-to-be, in the infobox, while keeping out the lame-duck's departure date. Note that this is currently done for Sheila Simon, aswell as the other outgoing governors & lieutenant governors infoboxes. Recommend you take you concerns to a wider audience, via the appropiate WikiProject, as you shouldn't be singling out Pat Quinn. :) GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert on my change yesterday. If the article is currently reduced to a redirect, yes of course it shouldn't go there. You may be aware that

Hi Buckshot. Sounds like good idea - I hate to see information like that being lost as well. By turning it into a historical article, it can still be preserved without having a "not up to date" problem. Thanks for stopping by to explain what's going on... :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This enquiry, [1] appears somewhat inappropriate to me, what matters is the neutrality, encyclopaedic character, and accuracy of an edit. However your statement does not accurately characterise my convictions at all. Cpsoper (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, encyclopedic character, and accuracy of edits is the overriding concern of all edits in actual article space. On Talk Pages, however, editors engage in discourse to get an understanding of the positions being raised, and their clarity is sometimes obscured. Your "convictions" are not an issue here, but the point you're trying to make is worth trying to understand, and you began your response with "Thanks, on the contrary, it shows...", leading me to believe you're trying to say that Ham is correct in his claim that science is actually being taught as a religion in public schools. If that is not what you're saying, I would think it would be simple to reply there saying "That is not what I'm saying," but by all means feel free to drop the issue and make no response if that is what you desire. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Forward, Together Forward" is the Official University Motto.

LTLT is/was some optional add-on tag slogan to the logo redesign back in 2011. YFOF may be the new LTLT but neither is the Official University Motto. That remains "Forward, Together Forward."

"Forward, Together Forward" appears on Memorials to the victims of the 2008 incident because it is the University's motto not the other way around. The scholarships set up in honor of the victims also takes its name from the Official University Motto (FTF) as do many other tributes, sayings, nicknames, etc.

The Official Motto for Northern Illinois University is "Forward, Together Forward." Please undo your change, thank you.

Also, that user made another incorrect change. The University's official colors are cardinal (red) and black, which he/she would have known if they had bothered to check the footnote prior to making the (wrong) change. There is also this: http://www.niuhuskies.com/trads/niu-trads.html "Note to graphic artists and printers: The NIU CARDINAL red is Pantone Matching System 1935." I corrected the change to the "Colors" section and referenced the link above in the new footnote, as it is much clearer. --ForwardNIU (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, your interest in collaborating and contributing here is appreciated. I will transclude your remarks to the article's talk page, where the conversation and efforts to improve the article can continue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed appropriate to delete the material as it was already determined to be BLP violations and the BLP investigation reviewer thought you did a good job on the article edits. It seemed to violate BLP which I believe takes precedence over Talk page guidelines but I have no intent of trying to take it out again as it was a pain with the filter and my IP because of my defiance to register. It is your call but I believe it will only lead to greater problems in the future. It also makes no sense to post material on a talk page that clearly violates

I understand your concerns and sentiments. I have inserted a hide-text bar so that the quotes are not readily visible when a reader visits the page unless they click the <show> button. Does that help? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely helped the page layout so comments below it were not in such a small font. I am trying to get through to John as he has much to add if done according to guidelines. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like things have settled down now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AzureCitizen. You are welcome to edit the GSL article, however, in your edit summary you stated intrastate is "OK" to add into the article, except, the cites you added don't mention GSL. I did not revert your edit, as you did not add "intrastate" to the article, but feel free to discuss it with us on the talk page. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. In case there's confusion going on here, my edit summary said "Added federal law regarding unlicensed persons selling firearms to other unlicensed persons, i.e., intrastate=okay, interstate=prohibited." What the "i.e., intrastate=okay..." meant was that with regard to federal law, intrastate was permitted and interstate was prohibited; I wasn't expressing any opinions beyond that. I did see that there has been a lot of debate on the Talk Page about what the scope of GSL is. Perhaps an RfC would be a good way to bring in the community to help figure out what that should be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Your comments typically have this quality to them, and there's certainly no shortage of that on WP. Well deserved. Darknipples (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to copy edit this article? I appreciate your kindness.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I will certainly try to copy edit it sometime when I can concentrate on it. Lately I've been travelling a lot and haven't had time to do much Wiki-editing; upon my return, I will take a shot at it. Take care, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, I'm fine with it but we have two conflicting NYT sources: as you say "gadfly" says he was asked to leave, the other says he was forced to choose. The text in your edit maintains that contradiction: "he was asked to leave" and "he chose activism." I don't think it's significant enough to start a section on the talk page but I wanted to explain my reasoning and convey my non-objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources are conflicting. O'Keefe was asked to leave because of the problem his continued activism would cause to the institute's non-profit status; when that happened, he faced a choice. If he had told them "wait, okay, I will give up the activism", it would have become a non-issue and he could have stayed. O'Keefe decided to stick with the activism, however, so he had to honor their request that he leave. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AC, would like to know where do you get that the "V" is currently authorized for the suspension ribbon "or" service ribbon of a medal as you have in the introduction and if the article title was "V" Device for years why is it "V" device now (or am I asking the wrong person which means perhaps I'm not supposed to be asking these questions)? YahwehSaves (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to being worn on the suspension ribbon or the service ribbon of a medal, when a service member wears their uniform, they are either wearing the usual ribbon rack or they are wearing all their full medals with suspension ribbons. They would never wear both at the same time, i.e., the usual ribbons and the full medals simultaneously. Thus, in a manner of ordinary phrasing when referring to a member wearing an award with a "V", they wear the "V" on the suspension ribbon or its corresponding service ribbon. Does that make sense to you now? Perhaps you were interpreting it differently?

With regard to case, upper versus lower, for the "d" in device in the article title, the Department of Defense usually refers to devices with a lower-case d because it's not a proper noun. See this volume for example. It's replete with instances of referring to devices like the "V" device and others with a lower-case d. It's also true that in some spots within the document, they uppercase the d, usually when listing it in a heading or a list of items where they have capitalized everything else too; this is probably due to their formatting rules for when they write manuals. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has its own guidance and policy about article titles, and in situations where something is not a proper noun, the rules say that you capitalize the first letter of the first word in the title, but lower case the words that follows. I realize this is inconsistent with the other articles on Wikipedia right now about US Armed Forces devices, such as the "M" device, "A" device, etc. The correct answer is probably that they should all be synchronized and titled the same way, i.e., all uppercase or all lowercase starting letter for the word "device". A good way to resolve that would be to start a conversation at the Article titles talk page, and ask for community guidance as to whether or not the letter d in the word device should be upper case or lower case when used in article titles as a matter of policy. Sound good?

Lastly, with regard to using parenthesis in article text, I know you frequently add your thoughts that way to article content. When you do that, try using this trick before you hit the "save" button: Re-read the portion of text where you have just added some parenthesis, and re-think how the text you just edited has been worded. If you parse through it carefully, you will usually figure out that there is another way to rephrase the sentence or add more material with additional sentences such that using parenthesis isn't necessary. Hope that helps. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know the DoD has been making mistakes with their awards manuals, for example, they had the Navy PUC with authorized 5/16" stars instead of 3/16" stars, FMF Combat Operations Insignia instead of FMF Combat Operation Insignia, and a Medal of Honor with a "V" Device which I doubt the naval services ever officially accepted and maybe the USAF did not accept that either, ever see proof that it was accepted? If you recall, a recent DoD manual referred to devices as "service devices". Now, they dropped that.

It appears you're saying that since the DoD has made typos and mistakes, the fact that they keep using lowercase d is just an accident, and that it's a really a proper noun which should be capitalized throughout. I don't really think that's the case (no pun intended), but maybe you could convince others of that. Have you given thought to going to the Article Names talk page (linked above) and starting a community question on the matter? At least that would bring in others including Wikipedia editors who are better experts at that sort of thing.

Reply to your 3 paragraphs above:

1) I see what you are saying now. I guess you did not understand what what I was saying. As is, your sentence is not right, "corresponding", and two "thats". The service ribbon is part of the award/medal and one "that" is enough. The military considers the service ribbon to be a portion of the suspension ribbon of the medal. https://img6.fold3.com/img/thumbnail/313656106/300/400/0_0_300_331.jpg

You have - A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

service ribbon, that denotes that the medal was awarded by the United States Armed Forces

for valor in combat.

The "V" Device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

service ribbon

of certain United States military medals to denote an award for valor in combat was received.

If you don't like the two "thats", or the word "corresponding", we can easily remove those. I didn't like your use of the phrase "that if authorized", either. As the article has been moved to "V device" now as opposed to "V Device", we should probably stick with "V device" until the page is moved back, which probably won't happen unless the matter is taken up on the Article Titles talk page. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment regarding the use of "and" versus "or": Your point is that you can wear the "V" on both the suspension ribbon and the service ribbon, which is why you are phrasing it as "and". My point is that a service member would never wear the medal with suspension ribbon plus the service ribbon at the same time, hence why I keep phrasing it as "or". Are you aware of any other military award articles on Wikipedia that would help illustrate how it has been phrased elsewhere? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) Now DoD is going from V Devise to V device? Maybe there are other kinds of "V" devices in machine shops or something? You're the person that named this article "V" Device, maybe you should stick with that for now? The other military letter device articles have "The "M" Device. The "A" Device... isn't it better to be consistent for the time being?

Those pages are still article-titled "M Device", "A Device", etc. They should remain "The" instead of "A" until (if it ever happens) the inconsistency gets sorted out with regard to article. Meanwhile, the "V" device article has been moved to "V device" with a lowercase d. In keeping with Wikipedia style, that means the first sentence of the lede should say "V device", not "V Device". For comparison, look at other article tiles that start with a capital letter but then have lowercase letters. Here's one: Symmetry in biology. Here's another: Frame bundle. Can you show me examples where an article title has lowercase letters in the title, but uppercase letters in the opening of the lede? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) I think parenthesis are useful sometimes, maybe even in the infobox too.

Unfortunately, they aren't in keeping with Wikipedia's style. If you write something at first using parenthesis, just go back over the thought you're having and try re-writing it without the parenthesis. Are you aware of any other articles on Wikipedia where text prose contains parenthesis? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I think its better or useful to have something in the infobox for First award, rather than have nothing there. Say, "1946, or 1947", you agree? It seems very doubtful any V's were made and issued in 1945, if they just decided on a V device in Dec. 1945 (have a 12/13 date for decision) and if the Vs had to be applied for. Those in service in 1946, may have gotten the V's first for WWII service is my guess, that is if the V was available in 1946. Far as consistency, place the all the ribbons examples in the article in order like the Joint Service CM ribbons - far left side. Does not look right as is. YahwehSaves (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the infobox first award parameter is that we simply don't know when it was first awarded, hence we're stuck speculating, which is not encyclopedic. That's okay. When something isn't known, the right answer is to just leave that text parameter field blank, so that it doesn't show up on the active page. It doesn't really detract from the article that it's known, does it?

With regard to the ribbon box examples, I will move them back so that the ribbon images are flush-aligned to the left side again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not agree with the "or" use is because I've seen manuals use "and", not "or". Unless you have seen it somewhere with "or"? Also, its usually written as "suspension and service ribbon" of a medal. As it is written now, you make it sound like any medal can have a "V", don't you? The medals the V applies to seem to be all dual-purpose medals. That's why I put "certain medals", but its actually certain decorations or certain combat decorations. The V does mean, stand for, or represent "valor", so it denotes valor does it not?. When worn on a dual-purpose decoration, the "V" denotes the decoration which was awarded for heroism in combat, was awarded for valor. The article is about the V device, not a service member wearing a medal or service ribbon which has a V.

You have: A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

Been gone on orders without access to the Internet. I've simplified it again to be very succinct and direct:

"A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs which denotes a medal was awarded by the United States Armed Forces for valor in combat".

This makes it very simple and clear to the reader what the "V" is for, without getting in the more nuanced details which follow in the second paragraph. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply not clear enough since the V device involves multi-purpose medals only. Again, you make it look like any medal awarded for valor can have a "V"; the Silver Star is awarded for "gallantry in action"; the Bronze Star which was intended for minor acts of heroism can be awarded for "heroic achievement or service". Only certain medals that are awarded either for heroism or meritorious service like the BSM ... are authorized the "V" device; the valor device is used on some lower ranking decorations.

A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

serifs, which is is used as a ribbon attachment on United States military multi-purpose decorations to denote an award for heroism (valor) in combat. YahwehSaves (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Due to our experience, we're aware of the differences between the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal, and other medals with regard to the "V" device (be it with one, or without one). For the typical uninformed Wikipedia reader, this can be confusing. Your edit that the device denotes valor "on multi-purpose decorations" does not actually explain or clarify for their understanding what that difference is, does it? Linking that phrase to an article that does not explain it either makes it more confusing. With regard to your addition "used a ribbon attachment to denote" (note grammar mistake), the first sentence of the next paragraph explains that, so we don't need to be redundant. In any event, I will take another stab at revising the text again, with the intention of trying to make the distinction more plain. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

Its still confusing... makes it sound like all decorations can have the V. This time will not forget about the 2nd paragraph and make that easier to read and understand too.

A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

serifs which denotes that a decoration was awarded by the United States Armed Forces

for valor in combat instead of being awarded for meritorious service or achievements.

A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm)

serifs, which when worn on certain decorations awarded by the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes an award for heroism or valor in combat instead of for meritorious service or achievement. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you change the article title of Fleet Marine Force Combat Insignia to the correct title of the device - Fleet Marine Force Combat Operation Insignia. Its causing confusion there. Thanks YahwehSaves (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have mentioned this to you first before editing at this article: You mentioned or lectured to me about not using the parenthesis. I removed a "parenthesis" in the Mickey Mantle box and the "for the"... which I thought were both not necessary and improved the infobox (yes or no?), and was given a crazy "WTF", "what are you doing", revert by User:Yankees10.

Teams
New York Yankees (1951-1968)
New York Yankees, 1951-1968

MLB debut
April 17, 1951, for the New York Yankees
April 17, 1951 - New York Yankees

Last MLB appearance
September 28, 1968, for the New York Yankees
September 28, 1968 - New York Yankees

He also has under:
"Career highlights and awards", which should be Career awards and highlights:
"20x All-Star", he list 20 games in parenthesis when a "game" is not an "All-Star", which could or should be
"All-Star, 16x": .... He credits several players infoboxes like Rick Ferrell as a 1945 MLB All-Star when there were no 1945 MLB All-Stars officially selected that season due to the war, the 1945 MLB AS Game was cancelled and not played. Someone should ask him or lecture him "what's he's doing" with 1945 All-Stars in several infoboxes .... YahwehSaves (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone for the past week. Looking at the above, I would say it would be best to look at what the normal conventions are for Wikipedia articles for the style in which that kind of information is displayed for consistency. With regard to parenthesis, it's best to avoid using them in ordinary article text (always see if the sentence can simply be rephrased, such that parenthesis are not necessary), but there are some things in which using parenthesis is normal and expected, like when giving a date or date range after a proper noun. For example, "Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)" would be an expected way to use parenthesis in a Wikipedia article, rather than writing "Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1865", etc. Are there other baseball related articles you can look to for comparison with regard to how they display that information in the infoboxes? With regard to incorrect information about whether or not a given player was a Major League Baseball All-Star, I have no expertise in that area, but that sounds like a factual item that should definitely be brought up on the Talk Page, in order to get to the truth and to settle the matter. Sound good? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles titled All-star and All-star game and only one article Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

If you can, would you begin an article titled "Major League Baseball All-Star"; that is if it is All-Star/All-Star Game rather then All-star/All-star Game? YahwehSaves (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the newly begun article here:

Major League Baseball All-Star. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Added content and sources. All-Star players are not All-Star Games; there were no official MLB All-Star players, teams, and game in 1945 because of the cancellation of that season's All-Star Game. Are you following the article/talk? YahwehSaves (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've been extremely busy of late and haven't spent a lot of time on Wikipedia following articles. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the

Major League Baseball All-Star article, if you get a chance take a look at it now. The question is whether it should remain a separate page? I would think so. 05:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs

)

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for your contribution. However, it doesn't cite any sources. Please add more sources and lengthen the page. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

I needed to make a Silver Citation Star revert at the military award devices article since "Citation Star" had already been listed there with the other devices. You may want to change the article "Silver Citation Star" to or back to "Citation Star" (World War I, Silver Star) (?).[2] There is also the Navy Commendation Star which is a 3/16" silver star too. Maybe this change back to Citation Star needs to be in talk page at the Silver Citation Star article (could also mean silver citation, star)? Citations for gallantry in action were awarded, the 3/16" silver star was a ribbon attachment. Perhaps the article should be titled "Citation Star (Silver Star) or "Citation Star" (3/16" Silver Star)? This award for valor which was used as a ribbon attachment, and sometimes referred to as a Silver Star Citation,[3] appears as "Silver Star" when listed with and under other valor awards back in that earlier time period (MOH, DSC, Silver Star...), it was first awarded in 1920's after and for WWI citation recipients. YahwehSaves (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've moved it back to the original "Citation Star" since it appears that is the original (and correct) name, and no disambiguation is required at present because it is unique (no other countries in the world use "citation star" to describe something). Sound good? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok now, unless more wording is applied to the title like Citation Star (silver star). You added the Citation Star was replaced by the Silver Star Medal in 1932. The Citation Star was incorporated unto the medal I read - see Silver Star Medal section. I did not want to use word "incorporated" in the article. The medal is actually 2 stars if you want to mention that. May or not be mentioned in the "Silver Star" article.YahwehSaves (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current DOD Manual says Silver Star Medal (SSM) only.[4] Will you consider to change the article title from Silver Star to Silver Star Medal? YahwehSaves (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I am unable to get that page to move to "Silver Star Medal" when I try; there is an error message saying that the assistance of an administrator will be required. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is "Silver Star", but maybe should be Silver Star Medal since DOD 12/2016 is naming it that now which more or less Army will too. After all it is a U.S. military "medal". YahwehSaves (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have zero tolerance for abusive sockpuppetry of this type and would fully support an SPI. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: Hello! Thanks for posting a note of support here. I imagine we both find it disgusting that a male political-POV pusher would pretend to be a woman protesting gender abuse on a BLP in an effort to vote stack... and this coming after they promised to abandon their system-gaming ways the last time they were unblocked. I first encountered him doing this stuff back in 2010... showing up with a sock claiming to "vote". Even then, he pretended to be a woman (diff). He tends to be overconfident about his edits without realizing the behavioral evidence is obvious, and isn't afraid of Checkuser because he knows to use different PCs at different IPs (diff). If you check his Talk Page, you can easily retrieve the posts by admins regarding his block for vote-stacking stocking in 2013 and his conditional unblock in 2015 to refrain from socking. I was just going to post on one of the previously involved admins page with diffs, but on reflection, perhaps it should really be an SPI to properly stop the abusive behavior and make the sanction stick. Unfortunately, I am sitting in a USO at an airport right now, getting ready to leave shortly for another flight (going home to spend Thanksgiving with the wife & family)... so I won't have time for a couple days to give this the proper attention it deserves. Do you have any time to move an SPI forward (which I'll join & contribute), or do you want to standby and wait until I have time to get this process started later? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue putting together an SPI, but this one looks particularly tricky if we want to maximize the chance of it being successful, and there is a lot of historical stuff I'm unfamiliar with, so I'd prefer to be patient and leave it to you. The good news is that admins are more likely to be receptive due to their edit history and unblock condition; the bad news is that the SPI might depend on behavioral evidence, which is thin given the most recent sock's short edit history. I'd think the best approach would be to show that this episode mirrors the pattern. How do you know they're actually a man? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the sock master being male, I can't point you to a specific edit in their personal edit history, it's just my assessment based on what I've seen for a long time now. For good reason, I took a deliberate extended break from all things Wiki over the holiday and while visiting with family. Upon review of the article's Talk Page tonight I see that nobody really fell for the puppet, probably because it's obvious it's a sock posting contrived nonsense... especially the ridiculous claim that they were following instructions from a "private feminist forum" on how to edit on Wikipedia against male "hostility" and "bullying." GandyD calling them out shows that an actual woman editor quickly sees right through it; predictable that would happen when a male pretends to be a victimized feminist sock to push his partisan politics. Also, did you note the boorish attempt to imply "Ass" at the front of my name in their hasty reply? That misspelling was not an accident on his part; while comical, it's just another sign that gives him away in his aggressive behavior. In any event, I understand your point that while the sock is obviously a sock, it's difficult to tie the sock to the sock master based on a small number of edits. What is obvious to me might not be so obvious to the admin who happens to action the SPI. On the other hand, judging by the way sock and sock master went silent on the talk page shortly afterwards in the face of the "vote" becoming 17 to 3, I'm sure he realizes it's a lost cause now. He may well read this post here and feel compelled to don the sock again, but it's not going to help him get his way, is it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they see their participation in that RfC as a lost cause, and that's certainly good. What I'm afraid of though is that this sort of socking could tip the balance in the next dispute, or the next one, or the next one. I for one will be tracking their edits very closely from now on, and if I see SPAs !voting in any similar discussions then I'll be sure to look for even a whiff of a connection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding

Does this pertain to something concrete or is it just a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation? Volunteer Marek 02:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like bullying to me. Also,

WP:COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I referred explicitly above to my user talk. But I guess you folks are too busy to look, and too inclined to make baseless accusations. Azure Citizen said there, “He made it up to the rank of captain before he joined the bureau. However, there are no open source accessible online resources for that right now.“ Can we perhaps agree that material at Wikipedia should be reliably sourced to verifiable sources, rather than confidential sources of people who are somehow involved with a BLP subject? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Relax, there is no COI here. Be prepared to respond on the Talk Page regarding the Deputy Assistant Director thing, I'll post there next. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RUSI report there is no evidence except the words of Igor Sutyagin, who was convicted in Russia for treason. He had not a single fact in proof of his words, only the retelling of the official Ukrainian propaganda. You think he can be trusted? The number of troops, which he says is simply impossible not to notice. But no one has seen them, and you just believe in the word of this man, which was offended by Russia. So again I ask: why do you trust the source in which there is no clear facts? 213.87.120.30 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear on our understanding, are you claiming that thousands of Russian soldiers did not invade Ukraine in 2014? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of soldiers? You understand that such a massive grouping can not be leave unnoticed, then why is there no evidence other than the words of propaganda? It seems that all the thousands of soldiers are in the author's head. No tracking from satellites, no signs of intrusion, only words. Even not a single modern patch of the RF Armed Forces was found. Obviously, if there, then Ukraine could not resist them.

I know that Russia supplied military equipment and weapons there. Most likely, there are Russian military instructors. But the traces of the appearance of all those divisions about which Ukraine speaks are not there in principle. Even RUSI can not show traces. Btw, around the same time the chief of staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces says that there are no military operations with the regular Russian Army (try to translate subtitles). 213.87.120.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the Russian Armed Forces awarded thousands of medals for distinction in combat to Russian soldiers for combat service in 2014-2015? Or do you dismiss that as "propaganda"? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Hero of the Russian Federation Pavel Ostanin, who received it in February 2015, and whose action details are still secret? A local Russian media source (not Ukrainian!) reports the death of a serviceman in the Donbass here. Kges1901 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Ostanin serves in special operations forces. It's irregular troops. He may participate in special operations. In the second source nothing is said about the Russian soldier, it could be a mercenary or a volunteer. 213.87.120.30 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a significant number of awards. And even if we assume that the recipients were EACH soldier (but that's doubtful), it is still a huge group. So why can't they show Russians troops except the numbers on the medals? It is suspicious. 213.87.120.30 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant efforts were made to conceal their involvement, including small details like commanders ordering soldiers to leave behind all RF Armed Forces patches before crossing over the border. In October 2016, President Putin publicly stated his justification for why Russia did what it did. You may want to check out the article

Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and give it a thorough read. If you disagree with the content, you can register your thoughts on the Talk Page there. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your cleanup tonight of Clint Lorance. It was much in need, and you did an excellent job. KalHolmann (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd never seen the article before (and happened to come across it shortly before going to bed), but felt immediately it needed some help. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, AzureCitizen. If you want to, feel free to chime in at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note with the link, I was gone the rest of the weekend and wasn't tracking the conversation there. I will give it some thought... am not sure yet, but I would think the AR-15 style rifle or AR-15 disambiguation page would be the better choices, going on the assumption that most people searching for "AR-15" are looking for general information on what they are as opposed to the specific model made by Colt. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mass shootings article, why are we listing, for example, "multiple types" for the Texas tower shooting, but then "semi-automatic rifle and pistol" for Sandy Hook? Why aren't both "multiple types"? Or why is Umpqua Community College shooting "semi-automatic pistols and revolver" instead of "multiple handguns?" It just seems to me like we've gone out of our way to use the word "semiautomatic" as many times as possible. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we want to present the reader with information that is accurate and useful with regard to what types of firearms were used in a particular mass shooting. I suspect there are far more semi-automatic entries because mass shooters are able to use semi-automatic weapons more effectively (I'm sure you'd agree). However, once we start listing three or more different types, it becomes unwieldy. So my logic for the table is that if the shooter uses one or two types, we definitely list those, and if the shooter uses three types or more, we annotate it as "Multiple types of firearms" as opposed to the old entry "Multiple weapons." As only six of the twenty entries were shootings in which the shooter used a single firearm, keeping entries like "Semi-automatic rifle and pistol" or "semi-automatic pistols and revolver" continue to provide better granularity versus having a chart with a majority of entries saying "multiple weapons". It gives readers a better impression of what most mass shooters are using if they are doing at-a-glance research as opposed to clicking on each individual incident article and trying to make a tally. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaguar here... I think we should include as much verifiable detail as possible for these items. List out everything; if it's a list of 15 guns, then include them all. Obviously the Vegas shooter's use of a bump stock received tremendous coverage, so it should be included. Names of manufacturers should be included too when available, as press coverage often comes around to them too. Also, citations should be inline rather than in a separate column to help with
  source-text integrity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I disagree. Tables like that should be a snapshot, not an exhaustive list. Each one of those incidents has an article linked to it, in the table, that provides the more in-depth list. If we were to apply your reasoning, we should list the killers name, date of birth, time of day, day of the week, probably the killers place of birth... and so on. Just because we can "verify" something doesn't mean it goes into every chart. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon my return, I see this has turned into a discussion at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States#Level of weapons detail, so I'll rejoin any further discussions there. As the trend seems to be going in the direction of adding further details, I will re-look the "multiple firearms" situation again to see how many incidents involved more than three, and which did not. For the latter, it might be simple enough to just add that information. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a admin? What policy do you believe supports your removal of reliable sourced content, that with its opposing view brought neutrality to article. -72bikers (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:BRD for a better understanding of what happens when you add new content, then someone else removes it. Basically, your next move should be to go to the Talk Page and seek consensus. Ironically, I was just about to post something there about conducting a survey, so look for it in a few minutes. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Again could you state if you are a admin? Are you aware of this

WP:NPOV "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." -72bikers (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are trying to argue that

WP:NPOV makes it such that the content you want to add must be added, you should probably try to explain that better on the article talk page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for starting the survey, I was about to do the same. -72bikers (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that

No problem. It appears they have ceased hatting the other editor's comments and have moved on. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, but there is a pattern here (including of moving posts about). So I am not going to hold my breath we will not be back in a few weeks.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the user in question got themselves topic banned, followed by violating the ban and getting blocked, so it looks like their problematic pattern caught up with them. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello are you a script or are not checking what you're reverting? I only made one edit and another user started a edit war with me, reverting instantly without reading the source. Please do the needful and actually read things before you press the button. Thanks -Neuroelectronic (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted the word "false" three times now (1st, 2nd, 3rd) on an article with a 1RR restriction, so you'd better pay attention to the warnings before you press the button again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AzureCitizen. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

Hello, AzureCitizen. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why anyone would want to remove what's probably the only interesting thing about the article thus far, backed up by an unarguable citation? Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it's true (that the page referenced in the film is not the right page in the actual book), the problem is that it's

original research, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion without a reliable secondary source commenting on it (which does not appear to exist). I'd recommend just letting it go as it seems to be a very trivial matter and several other editors are opposing your edit. If you're going to stick around and keep editing Wikipedia, you're going to need to edit more collaboratively and less disruptively, as evidenced by an admin's decision to block you for the next two weeks. Good luck. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The edition you reverted, was not FORUM, I provided biological information for which Patrick does not fit the American definition of "white" and, therefore, should not be described as such in the article. According to who is that man white? The perception of the press only, although no biological information is provided? I would like there to be consensus on that, because I study forensic anthropology, I consulted it with my qualified professors and I can confirm credentials of professors who support that the phenotype of that man is not 100% European. While it is true that the word "white" is extremely ambiguous, it is being used in the context of the United States where white = person of European descent. How can a person with Mongoloid influence on his face be European? That man is not completely white in the American context, although the press considers it that way, biologically it is not. And it is an encyclopedic error to consider. I request that there should be consensus on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.171.112.95 (talk)

If you want your comment to be taken credibly, you should post reliable sources on the Talk Page (articles, news reporting, etc.) in which known experts take up this issue. Your own opinion that the subject doesn't look white enough to you to be white, despite the existing news reporting saying that he is white, is insufficient and won't be taken seriously. Try doing some research and see what you can find in the way of sources; if you can't find anything then comments like that will be seen as forum posting. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks
	~ thanks for including me in your edit ~ also ~ you have such a lovely job ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny scene from that movie, thanks.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think I’m being edit stalked by the same user you reported at Ranger School on the United States Air Force, United States Army, United States Navy, and United States Marine Corps page. Worried that the purpose is to be disruptive, and want to get your perspective. Garuda28 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the person is trying to retaliate for the removal of their "women can't make it through Ranger School without special treatment" content (sourced to "Popular Military", owned by Bright Mountain Media, which is low quality if you look at the kind of "news" it purports to carry with titles like "Model breaks US travel ban, poses naked with North Korean soldier’s hat", "Army PVT had sex with underage girl in his Mercedes after offering her $9k", and "Veteran on trial for murder says Marines put nanobots in his brain"). Similarly, I noticed that after I tried to assist at Ranger School, they immediately reverted one of my recent edits on Forrest McDonald to retaliate. I filed an edit warring report about the Ranger School 3RR (they reverted five times in 24 hours), but no action by administrators yet, and the poorly sourced content is still in the article.

Regarding the stalking problem, I recommend you start a Sandbox page in your userspace and document in simple fashion the stalking (the article, the revert action that shows your content/edits being reverted by the stalker and what IP the stalker used that time). Revert the edits in question and in your edit summary, link to the sandbox page so that any editor can see the IP is specifically stalking you and deliberately reverting your edits as opposed to trying to make independent good faith edits on Wikipedia content. Finally, if they keep this up, post a complaint on ANI and link to the Sandbox page (which you are routinely updating). Eventually, an administrator will likely shut down the abusive behavior by the IP with a range block. Does that help? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I intend to follow that plan of action. Garuda28 (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if a rangebock is possible but it would certainly help to have a complete list of the IPs used and the articles edited. It's possible that semiprotecting a bunch of articles would be the quickest. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ed, for actioning the situation and semi-protecting affected articles. If stalking continues, a complete list of IPs will be compiled per your advice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t it be easier to just make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia? I posted non-biased statements about “claimed” special treatment that has been repeatedly happening since woman were allowed in Ranger school. All of that is factual regardless of a feeble attempt to discredit the source (there are plenty of other sources, if you don’t like the source find a better one and post it). There’s a reason Wikipedia has a reputation of keeping facts editors don’t like off the pages and you are all it. David Stefanski Dennis Leon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B141:232C:B98F:2650:6196:D243 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS Don’t you think it would be better if we used our real names all the time? People are so much more civil when they know who they are talking to. RLTW 07-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B141:232C:B98F:2650:6196:D243 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for people to "just make meaningful contributions," yet you willfully violate the community's norms and policies by edit warring and ignoring other editors' requests that you first seek consensus on the article's Talk Page when they object to your changes. Worse, you attempt to retaliate by looking at other users' editing histories and then attempt to reverse their edits like a stalker, something which is completely indefensible. You want other editors to consider your arguments on the merits and engage in thoughtful discussion? Then respect the community's customs and norms, abide by the accepted standards of behavior, and work within the system to collaborate instead of trying to bully to get your way. Isn't that the same thing we strive for in the military? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First your retaliation theory is way off. I tested you because you said if something is challenged it needs to go to talk...I challenged, you brought it to talk. You practiced what you preach...perfect. As for the other guy, look at my edits, the first were to see if he would bring it to talk like he was preaching. Then I saw how he just deletes anything...even some users that didn’t know how to format, rather than taking 2 seconds and fixing the format and sending the user a message to explain what they did wrong he just deletes. I did fix a lot of things he was deleting, look at the pages they are better now.

Second, you have yourself away as far as editing R school page in good faith with your comment above about “women can’t make it through without help” argument. My contribution was nothing of that kind and you know it. You didn’t like the facts and didn’t want them on the page...don’t forget that was all well before the edit warring BS.

Lastly, you are right, my behavior through this was $/!]. For that I apologize. But take into account that I made a meaningful contribution, received reverts claiming it was outdated (dates span from 2015 to present for the allegations), the Army refuted (do we really just censor any information because the Army refuted it, no we post that the army refuted it with a reference), and that the edit was “bold” which it clearly wasn’t (it was relevant, spoke of the huge controversy which is mentioned nowhere in the article, and was written in a non biased way). Having said that, I think if you and the other editor reflect a bit you’ll see you handled the whole thing like :&(& also.

Walk away with a lesson, I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B145:9CF1:69BB:BD4E:4335:E5DF (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away on duty for weeks with more important things to do, hence the long delay. On following other editors you have a conflict with to other random articles and reverting them just to see if they'll go to the Talk Page themselves to discuss, I take it you understand now that the community considers that to be disruptive and there are no conceivable circumstances that could ever justify it. The other "lesson learned" you allude to (I hope) is that edit warring when challenged on new and controversial content is always the wrong way to go. On the content you wanted to add, there is some information therein that could be included in the article, but it should be in proper context and not sourced to poor quality advertisement-driven sensationalism media like "Popular Military" that attributes its claims to anonymous sources that aren't vetted by real journalism. Edit warring naturally shuts down any good faith efforts others might make to find common ground and sort out what material (especially with better sourcing) might be suitable for inclusion. Now that that's all past, you can always propose adding content on the article's Talk Page if you're still interested, just remember that being open to compromise is important if you want to make progress in a community where editors are expected to behave congenially and collaboratively with their peers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain if this is the correct way to discuss the issue.

Since the article is about "the United States Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force", and neither the Confederate Army rank system, nor any rank thereof, played a part in the history of the structure nor any particular rank in the Army of the United States, nor of any other service, the Confederate Army Major rank is not germane to the article. Another article about that particular subject could be created. Systemicfuturist (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by to talk. Normally, discussions over articles should take place at the article's Talk Page (as opposed to here, on a user's talk page), but it's not a problem. With regard to the issue at hand, the article is "Major (United States)", and in theory applies to the use of the rank Major throughout U.S. history. A broader perspective is more instructive for the reader when it comes to that history, including the possibility that the rank might be used or has already been used in other ways; for example, take a look at the article "Commander (United States)." In addition to discussing the US Navy rank of Commander, the article discusses the other ways it might be used, including the police rank of Commander, or even just the title "Commander" in the way that a unit refers to it's commanding officer. In this respect, mentioning that the rank of Major was used by both sides in the Civil War is not so far a field as to make it inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Additionally, I think creating a new article titled "Major (Confederate States)" would be unnecessary given that the information can be included with just a few lines in the context of the Civil War on "Major (United States)". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering your opinion on this: Do you think it makes sense to merge

I see your point, it will be quite some time before the positions, ranks, and insignia of the Space Force come into their own. Until then, having whatever is known consolidated in a single article would be more efficient for readers. Obviously, whoever created those articles was patterning them after the existing Army, Navy, Air Force etc. articles which have so much content that they need to be split between officer and enlisted insignia. If we do consolidate into one article, the other two can become redirects, then changed from redirects back into stand alone articles when the time comes to split.

On a tangent note, I just saw the picture you uploaded from the Space Force Twitter account (presumably that is Gen Raymond in the photograph). Do you have any insights as to why they've chosen the forward-facing U.S. flag patch for the left shoulder side, as opposed to the reversed U.S. flag we commonly see on the Army OCP, Navy Expeditionary, and Air Force OCP uniforms on the right shoulder side? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll go boldly do that then. And I actually do not - but I do have a theory. Aside from differentiating it from the Air Force and Army, I guess that it could have also been done as a callback to the Air Force's and NASA's flight suits, but I have no source to back that up. Garuda28 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the guy was deposed and there's *video testimony* of him admitting he assisted DuPont to disinform the public with his insider EPA knowledge. Are you an employee of DuPont?thedoctar (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not work for DuPont. Paradoxically, I'm actually sympathetic to concerns that officials like McCabe would be assisting DuPont in lobbying for their cause, but this is a Wikipedia

WP:BLP and we do not add POV content like that to articles in such fashion. Try engaging with Kleuske on the Talk Page before you get yourself blocked for edit warring with a 4th revert. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to drag you into this. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's a shame that some people can't apply the brakes and slow down when others draw attention to BLP issues with their edits. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ntlawyers.com.au/difference-between-domestic-violence-order-dvo-protection-order-temporary-protection-order-tpo-restraining-order-apprehended-violence-order/ JarrahTree 03:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification; so in Queensland they are called DVO's and in New South Wales they are called AVO's if I understand correctly. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A close read of Domestic_violence_in_Australia should help JarrahTree 03:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence comes under state, not federal law, in Australia, and accordingly, arrangements and language used differ between states (there are several other variants as well). The correct term for that state is DVO. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff on fixing the Rodney Reed article etc. you did a lot. Cheers. Test123Bug (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I felt the article really needed a significant overhaul in rephrasing and reordering portions to make things read more clearly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been looking all over for official usage of the term, but even after yesterday the best I can find is Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force, which seems to be a place holder. Was wondering if you’ve had any better luck?Garuda28 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, from here (https://www.spaceforce.mil/Biographies/Article/2136021/chief-master-sergeant-roger-a-towberman) appears to be SEA of the SF as title right now.Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Yep, there is nothing out in the sourcing yet... I knew that when I made the change, but I figure it's near certainty that the rank title is "Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force" while the duty position title is "Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force"; while the article seen here refers to him as being the first Senior Enlisted Advisor, I'm guessing that's probably just the way the Public Affairs folks wrote it up. Also note this line in the linked article: "Today’s date signifies a tradition of heritage extending back to April 3, 1967, when Paul Wesley Airey became the first Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force." Ditto Towberman by implication? I also just read the biography link you posted above too, note that the first sentence reads "Chief Master Sergeant Roger A. Towberman is the Senior Enlisted Advisor of the United States Space Force and Command Senior Enlisted Leader of the United States Space Command." Again, as a rank title that biography clearly refers to him as "Chief Master Sergeant," while he has two duty position titles, "Senior Enlisted Advisor of the United States Space Force" and "Command Senior Enlisted Leader of the United States Space Command." So this all comes down to a rank title versus duty position title which will be confusing for most folks that aren't used to it. I suppose this does mean that any CMSSF edits/articles are open to a sourcing challenge right now if interested editors want to push that point. If the issue gets forced, we could move the "CMSSF" article to the name "Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force" and then move it back to "CMSSF" after the sourcing finally materializes and the point is proven. Your thoughts? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I think (80%) that you're probably right. I have seen sources that suggest they may be trying to do someting more independent. I'm gonna probably move the article titles to match sources until we get a more conclusive one, but this is moving very quickly and could change rapidly. Garuda28 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I appreciate that the updated articles (I looked at them just now) do their best to speak to duty position vs rank title, which gets a lot of people confused. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated – once the SF makes those one and the same it’ll get a lot easier. Garuda28 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Roger A. Towberman. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That user was a sockpuppet of a user who was banned by the community in 2017. The situation did result in making an improvement in addressing how many tags should be added to a thread. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AzureCitizen, thank you for

Hello Newslinger! Yep, you're 100% correct, the right way to do it is to put the /S at the very end, such that the sockpuppets name and timestamp stays on record with the rest of the text that was struck through. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be sure to get it right next time if I see sockpuppet comments like that. Appreciated, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AzureCitizen. Keep up the good work! — Newslinger talk 14:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your kind welcome message. I have a lot to learn and am excited to be included in the wiki-family! BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor on here who I feel is trying to get me "blocked." First off, I don't know what that means. Second, what can I do if another editor is harassing me, and possibly even stalking me? BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison[reply]

Hi Betsy! I'm sorry that I didn't get to your comments till now, it's been a busy day at work. I assume your questions were urgent at the time. First I read your note here, then I went and read your Talk Page and saw the back and forth comments with the other editors on the issues of harassment, discretionary sanctions, and editors being blocked. Have your questions been answered by the other editors therein, or do you have a follow-up question that I might be of assistance with? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen - Thank you for replying and I too am sorry to just now be getting back with you. To answer your question, no they have not been answered. You don't know me, but I have never shied away from constructive criticism/suggestions but once the line crosses into personal attack it's no longer construction criticism and that seems to be what may be happening. I say that because of what I wrote you before and since. For example, on May 1st. I got two messages from two editors of what I read to be legitimate constructive criticism and so I replied in-kind.

One of the messages sent to me included two examples (which were 2 other editor's replies to me in the Reade’s article talk page). The 2 examples given gave the appearance of supporting the critique of me. So after I replied and thanked editors for their critiques, I checked on the examples they gave and what I found was that the 2nd example they gave me did not support their critique, in fact it had nothing to do with what I was being critiqued about.

I'd like to assume the editor critiquing me made a simple error -- but given the location of the 2nd example and given that the nature of what the 2nd example was replying to me about had nothing at all to do with what I was being critiqued about so that made me pause with concern. To be specific, the 2nd example dealt only with an editor telling me to go ahead and make an edit without waiting for permission because people “are exhausted and may not be interested in long drawn-out discussions when they have several other articles that they are working on.”

Anyway, I'm at loss of what to do. Obviously I strive to follow all policies and obviously I don't know all of them yet so I will stumble here and there. I just feel like I keep getting threatened to be banned or blocked for no other reason than some people just have a difference of opinion from mine regarding actual editing-content for that Tara Reade wikipedia article. And if that is the case, if some want me banned or blocked because they don't like "what" I say; then I feel at a loss of how to protect, or defend myself against being block/banned for that.

This is more information than you need, but my reasons for joining wikipedia were just happenstance. I was not a member of WP & was reading the Reade page and made an "edit" (because I'd heard non-members can do that). My edit was removed and so I joined for no other reason than to discuss the edit I made as a non-member. Period. That was why I joined. Once I was a member, I waited for someone to give me permission to edit before I made the edit. Ultimately, someone gave me permission to make the edit, so I did.

I gotta say, I was honored to be a member of WP. I was excited to have the very serious responsibility of contributing to an online encyclopedia and I was prepared to use the utmost caution to present facts, and only facts, (whether I like the facts or not) in a concise, flowing manner in order to educate the general public.

Well, anyway, I don’t know what to do … I feel like I need to protect myself from unwarranted banning/blocking but I don’t know how to do that on here and I am hoping you can tell me the path to take, if any.

Please know I’m not trying to cry in anybody’s coffee, or make excuses, I am genuinely at a loss.

Sincerely, BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison[reply]

A couple points to ponder:

1) You're not blocked, and it's not up to the editors who are telling you that they think you should be blocked to get to decide whether or not you will be blocked. If they want to try to have you blocked, they have to go through procedures where they plead their case to the community and make their arguments against you in the proper forum, and you will have a chance to respond in kind. Editors who are uninvolved third parties will look at the evidence, and administrators will use their many years of experience here on Wikipedia to impartially determine whether a block is truly warranted. Even if it is warranted, the system is designed to take into account editors making mistakes, learning from them, and changing their behavior to conform to the community's norms. Only the truly incorrigible who are shown to do more harm than good get permanently blocked.

2) The political articles on Wikipedia are among the absolute most contentious, most heated, most

WP:BATTLEGROUND

prone articles to edit that we have, and the U.S. is in the final six months leading up to the presidential election. This really is among the worst places to be editing in the ensuing fracas; editors frequently do not extend good faith to others, work towards collegial compromise, see eye to eye, etc. Similarly, patience levels on political articles are very low for editors seen as being inexperienced, unfamiliar with policy, do not make their points succinctly, repeat the same points in their arguments, create new threads that discuss the same topics being discussed in a prior existing thread, etc. It's a tough crowd, LOL! If you were editing in a different topic area that didn't have this strife, you'd find the environment is much more pleasant and working with most other editors is fun and rewarding. That doesn't mean you can't edit in the political articles, it just means you have to be ready to accept that it is a bruising environment, and do your best to quickly adapt to the community's norms.

3) When in conflict with others on the highly contentious political articles, sometimes the other editor may be being completely honest and simply confronting you with an issue in which they really are right, meaning that there really is a problem with your own behavior and you need to learn from that and adjust accordingly; but there are other times where their comments may actually just be bad faith attempts to shut you down because they want to eliminate you from the debate for their convenience. When you're in a situation like that, go to another editor you perceive to be neutral and trust to give you an unvarnished second opinion, and then take the advice to heart if they tell you need to heed the other editor's protests and make changes to your editing approach.

Now, some specific constructive editing advice. You've probably seen that other editors have been pointing out to you that your talk page comments tend to be quite long (compared to all the other editors), and that you should make your points more succinctly. That's hard to do when you're new at this; it's a skill that takes time to learn, yet you're editing in a contentious political article which is like jumping right into the deep end of the pool when you've barely even learned how to swim. You don't have to give up and get out of the pool, but you've got to condition yourself to make your comments more concise, avoid repetition, and get to your point more quickly. Of all the things that other editors have been complaining about you, this is the only real item that you should really be concerned about if they decide they really are going to try to pursue having you blocked; it's not something that warrants a block right off the bat, but the longer it goes on then the longer evidence builds up to prove their point (the accumulation of too many long arguments on the talk page, etc.) This is because the community is likely to view it as a form of undesirable disruption of the talk page process, even though it's unwitting and unintentional on the part of the newbie editor who just wants to participate. So... that said... just try to work on that, and find a way to make the style and length of your political article talk page arguments more like those of the other editors you're conversing with, i.e., short and very much to the point. Does that help?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely helps! I will do my best to adapt to this forum's writing style. Thank you so very much! Sincerely, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison[reply]

P.S. I will keep all of your points in mind, especially while on passionate topics. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison[reply]

@

WP:Topic ban which leaves you free to edit (it's not a block) but prohibits you from editing articles about a certain subject. If I felt your editing was disruptive enough to merit a sanction I would probably start with that instead of a full block on your account. ~Awilley (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry about that. Haven't paid attention to crypto articles, so I didn't know Ross was under one. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here, just wanted to make sure you knew. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For this [5] edit - may we never cease raising our eyes to the heavens!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by to let me know, I'm glad you enjoyed that as much as I did.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advice on what could become an editing war. Background: I'm in a discussion on the talk page on the "Joe Biden Sexual Assault Allegation" page over what appears to be one editor wanting to misrepresent Reade's police report (here [6] ) . The discussion has become somewhat circular. To summarize, Reade acknowledges she did not put Biden's name in her report, media who obtained Reade's report say Reade did not put Biden's name in it, and some media printed the report so we can see with our own eyes Reade did not put Biden's name in it. Ok, those are those facts on that side. On the other side: on 4/28/2020 USA Today wrote that "....NPR report Biden's name is in the report." NPR acknowledged at the time they did not obtain the report and did not see the report, when they wrote that so they've filed a FOIA. Now, at this point today, it's clear (if for no other reason than Reade's own acknowledgement) that she did not put Biden's name in it. But, one editor wants to leave in the NPR inaccurate representation of Reade's report. My position to that other editor is that if WP editors leave in NPR's inaccurate report, then, knowing what we know now, WP editors would be willfully misrepresenting Reade's report. I plan to edit that NPR verbiage out; but my concern is that once I do, someone else may start an editing war with me. Any advice? Respectfully ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes sources conflict; reliable source #1 may say one thing, while reliable source #2 says something else. Usually, here on Wikipedia, if both sources are secondary reliable sources and are considered trustworthy, yet they disagree with each other, the best practice is to include both in the article. Example: "The Times says the suspect drove a red car. The Post says the suspect drove a blue car." You'll see a long and lengthy list of which major news sources the Wikipedia community has already vetted through endless noticeboard discussions at this location: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.

Have a look there, and you'll see that both USA Today and NPR are coded green and considered to be generally reliable. After looking at both articles just now (USA Today, NPR), it looks like the statements are as follows:

1. USA Today reported that the police record "reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."

2. NPR reported it had "obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."

Both sources can be right and reporting the truth as their reporters believe it be. The Associated Press (referred to by USA Today) did get a copy of the 1-page report summary (which is more or less just a cover sheet; there was an image of it online at one point), and it just refers to "Subject-1" saying they were sexually assaulted by "Subject 2" in 1993. Meanwhile, a more in-depth (and complete) police report exists, within which one would normally expect that the alleged victim would accuse and name her alleged assailant; NPR says a law enforcement source said it names Biden by name, so NPR is following that up by going through a FOIA request to lawfully obtain a copy of the full report.

Now that you've digested the above and read the quoted text from the linked USA Today and NPR articles, what would be the best way to present the information in the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying back in such detail. You've given me much food for thought, very helpful. To answer your question: At this point, what we know now, my instincts would be to put in the NYT article that includes Reade explaining that she did not put his name in it but that she was talking about him; which aligns with what all other sources report except NPR who did not obtain a copy, but just confirmation one exists. My reasoning for that is to not knowingly or willfully misrepresent anything to the WP reader. In this case, since NPR is definitely the outlier, and does not appear to have spoken to Reade about her report nor obtain a copy of the 1-page report when they reported what they did, all logic says that NPR is mistaken in their reporting so leave NPR out and put in what NYT & other media report. However, after reading what you wrote, that you laid out so very well, and since one editor is very adamant about keeping NPR verbiage in, I can reconcile with my instincts and leave the NPR verbiage in until (and if) NPR report on what they obtain from their FOIA. I mean, yes, we know leaving it in does misrepresent Reade’s report just based on what she told the NYT. But, at the same time, since Reade’s police report has almost zero value to a WP reader in regard to her allegations, taking out NPR verbiage is not worth going to ‘edit war’ over. So I will reserve my energy and use it on issues of higher significance.

I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to explain to me, in such detail, a new way for me to weigh the pros & cons in this situation. It allows me to feel that I’m not knowingly or willfully harming the WP reader by leaving the NPR verbiage in. You’re a very wise, and patient person, so I thank you from the bottom of my heart. ~Sincerely BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that was of use to you... with time, you will pick up more Wikipedia editing decision making skills and add them to your toolkit. Would you mind giving me the link to the NYT article wherein Reade said she did not put Biden's name in the report? I should probably read that one too.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing the link to the NYT article where Reade says she didn't put Biden's name in the report, but that it is about him. (7th paragraph) "On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him."[7] ~Always, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying that. After analyzing it, I think it's important to note that Reade doesn't actually say that she didn't put Biden's name in the report. The Times states that the public incident report (PIR) does not contain Biden's name, but the PIR is just the one-pager (like a cover sheet) that I alluded to above. The actual police report, where all the details are fleshed out, is where the accused name would appear (if the accuser named the accused to the police). The Times goes on state that Reade "said the complaint was about him." This doesn't prove that Biden is named in the report, but it disproves the premise "Reade said she didn't put Biden's name in the report" (report as in the full police report, not report as in the PIR). Does that help shed light on what is going on there? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the distinction you are making. And while the distinction does not puzzle me, I do follow it, the premise behind it does. Here’s what I mean, NYT spoke with Reade and they report that she acknowledges the report “does not mention Mr. Biden by name” but "she said the complaint is about him."

Keyword for me there is: "about."

Given the premise of the distinction: If: Reade told them his name is actually in “the” report/complaint but simply not in the 1-page report; then you’d think NYT would say that, but they don’t. They do not write, “but she said [his name is in] the complaint.” They instead write “but she said the complaint was about him.”

Given what NYT says, and does not say, the casual observer would most likely conclude Reade did not mention Biden’s name in either.

And, because the distinction you gave coupled with the premise I formulated struck my curiosity I looked a little deeper.

1. From Tampa Bay Times Fact-checker “On April 9, Reade filed a police report in Washington, D.C., saying she was a sexual assault victim in 1993 without naming Biden, the New York Times reported.”

They use the same source as me & conclude the same.

2. Time Mag writes, “Reade filed a police report in Washington, D.C. The document provided to TIME by Washington police does not name Reade or Biden, but Reade told TIME that the report is about the sexual assault allegation against Biden.”

Another report saying: ‘is about … him’ but not “is in the complaint”

3. I went on twitter (oh lord have mercy) to search “Tara Reade Police” and only found garbage. Then went on Reade’s twitter page (why she has one is beyond me - but I digress). The only thing on her page was a link to a Business Insider article, “While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden”

While they do say it was anonymized; they don’t say if his name is or isn’t in the filed report.

4. I did get on NPR website to see if they had an update for their FOIA and they do not, nor have they made any changes/corrections to their first report.

So, in the end, I guess this just all ends up being very interesting with NPR still being the outlier saying his name is "in the report" and requesting FOIA.

Thank you for giving me another way to look at this information. It piqued my curiosity & allowed me a chance to do more research and broadened my view on this topic. ~Sincerely, BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to quote the first sentence you wrote above but bold two of the words you used and ask about them so that there's no miscommunication taking place between us. Here's your first sentence:

"Here’s what I mean, NYT spoke with Reade and they report that she acknowledges the report “does not mention Mr. Biden by name” but "she said the complaint is about him."

1. When you used the word report in the bolded instance, were you referring specifically to the 1-page Public Incident Report or the full police report?

2. When you used the word complaint in the bolded instance, were you referring specifically to the 1-page Public Incident Report or the full police report? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming the “report” is the 1-page Public Incident Report. I am assuming the “complaint” is what was filed with the DC police (not the 1-page report). Are we on the same page on that, or do we have a miscommunication? ~Always, BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My wording "report/complaint" above is my error. That sentence should read: "...If: Reade told them his name is actually in “the” report/complaint but simply not in the 1-page report; then you’d think NYT would say that, but they don’t. They do not write, “but she said [his name is in] the complaint.” They instead write “but she said the complaint was about him.” ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're on the same page... thanks for making that perfectly clear, just so that there are no misunderstandings.  :) So, due to the Times writing "she said the complaint was about him" rather than writing "she said his name is in the complaint," we are left with an ambiguity which can be argued either way, and neither is definitive because the opposite interpretation can not be ruled out. As a law school professor of mine once said, "English is a very precise language," meaning our choice of each and every word matters. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, are you former/current? Regards, Policeguy31 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current. Yourself? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer active, but stay in touch with the community. Regards, Policeguy31 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Perhaps you're a member of ACIDG too? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my edit on a TP criticizing an editor for linking to a disgusting article bringing up a clear BLP vio; but you didn't delete the original sin? O3000 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You publicized the very thing that you're saying is a clear BLP violation, drawing attention to it, announcing it for anyone to read in the open. If you'd said nothing, nobody would have seen that information unless they delved down into an offsite article and ferreted it out (as the other editor didn't bring any of that up). Then you could have asked the other editor on their Talk Page to amend their edit, or bring it to the attention of a noticeboard if they refused, and an admin would rightly make the determination. If you can't see that simple point, then you're not being objective about this at all. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, when did you go to my TP to talk about what you thought was a vio instead of editing my edit? O3000 (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was different; it immediately put the information right out in the open for potentially hundreds of readers to see within minutes (as there are many page lurkers and just members of the public who look at the Talk Page in addition to the article). Immediate redaction is the remedy for someone immediately putting information out in the open like that. In any event, I see that you didn't actually "undo" my redaction, but instead edited your original statement to tone it down a bit. It's improved slightly, but you're still publicizing that his "relatives" are charged with crimes. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you didn't come to my TP as you said should be done. And, you don't seem to have a problem with the large number of posts claiming the dead man is a convicted felon. (For which there is no evidence.) But, believe what you wish. This is pointless. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said an editor should go to someone's Talk Page when they see another editor has publicized something right out in the open. I said an editor should go to another editor's Talk Page when they see they have linked to something off-site, in order to draw no attention to it on the affected article talk page. When an editor publicizes something out in the open, blatantly, like you did, the right answer is redaction, plain and simple. No need to go to their talk page and try to talk them into redacting; just redact it on the spot. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ~~~~ when closing discussions, so we know who closed it. Thanks for closing and archiving the threads. starship.paint (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question for you. As you know I've been on this website for less than 30 days. In those 30 days I've made very few actual "edits" to WP articles but have made several contributions to talk pages. The talk page I've contributed mostly to, but not only to, in my short time here, has been the Joe Biden sexual assault talk page. I don't know how many different article's talk pages I'm supposed to have contributed to in my short time here to avoid being accused of WP:SPA, but whatever that number is, I obviously have not reached it. I feel that the whole "welcome new users" thing is a bit a myth. It's bad enough that some people have come to my personal talk page to lob personal attacks against me & falsely accuse me of nonsense, but now, unless I just don't understand the WP:NPA guidelines, I feel that now I'm being personally attacked on article's talk pages. To be specific, here's a "diff" [8] that explains what I'm talking about. A part me is laughing about the pettiness of all this unfounded nonsense, but another me is questioning what the heck is going on? So, if you can tell me the number of article's I'm supposed to have contributed at this point to alleviate some people's concerns, I'd appreciate it. You know, I volunteer my time here just like everyone else, and I'm as busy as everyone else, and I deserve to be treated the same way as everyone else. If this last month is any example of how people are going to 'thank' me for volunteering my time here; then I'm happy to leave. I'm far too busy to worry about defending myself against all this unfounded nonsense. I feel some of the pettiness is truly staggeringly unbelievable. ~Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a vast and expansive project with over six million different articles. The vast majority of those articles do not have the kind of rancorous problems you'll find at a highly politicized article like "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation." The majority of Wikipedia editors are busily creating, correcting, enhancing, expanding, and curating the large bulk of articles that comprise the enterprise's attempt to make a comprehensive encyclopedia of human knowledge available to everyone, on demand, for free. If you were a SPA editing in some obscure area like the taxonomy of certain butterflies, you wouldn't be experiencing the grief of coming into conflict with others on article Talk Pages and trying to come to a meeting of the minds over contentious issues. Editing in non-politicized areas is far more enjoyable and will feel like a more rewarding use of your time; editing in politicized areas requires a lot of patience, tempered expectations, and being thick skinned about accusations and criticisms. On political articles, your background as a SPA will rarely being seen as beneficial; neutral editors will give less weight to your arguments, and opposing editors will assume far worse. Because you're a SPA, your motivations will always be suspect. On that note, if you have time and you're interested, check out this TED talk on motivated reasoning: "Why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong".

With regard to how many articles do you have to edit before you can start challenging (and decisively removing) SPA tags if another editor puts them on your comments, I'd say fifty to a hundred edits spaced out among a half dozen or more different articles (of varying types, with no common themes like current political controversy articles). Also, it would be important that the edits not be an attempt to create the appearance of diversity in your edit history, i.e., not a bunch of edits correcting a typo here or there in an effort to rack up the count. If you engage sincerely in helping improve Wikipedia that way, you're likely to find you'll actually enjoy doing it too.

With regard to editors stopping by your page and launching into lengthy discussions criticizing you for your edits (and keeping the antagonism going, with every response by yourself met with another comment and more conflict coming from them), you don't have to put up with all that. Be careful not to screen out sincere attempts from other editors to alert you to issues and problems with your behavior, but once they've made their basic point, you don't have to let the conversation continue. Tell them you're done with the conversation, and ask that if they want to engage further on the content in the article, then to do so with you on the article's Talk Page. If they ignore your polite request and continue the barrage, just delete the entire thread from your own Talk Page. If they revert and re-instate the conversation, just delete it again. If they revert a second time, take them to a noticeboard and have an administrator to step in, along with a request that the offending editor be told to stay off your personal Talk Page forever. You have that right. So... glancing at your own Talk Page right now, I would completely erase some of the conversations that are bothering you right now (so that you'll stop seeing them yourself and revisiting the uglier side of those conversations), and start afresh. The other option is to quit Wikipedia, or go on an extended break, and don't return until you're ready to stomach it. There's so much anxiety, stress, worry, confrontation, and frustration in those types of articles that it's a very reasonable question to ask oneself, "Is this even worth it"? Here's a quick one-panel cartoon that I think sums that one up pretty well too: "Someone is Wrong on the Internet". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent cartoon! Thanks for sharing. I didn't know I was allowed to delete sections threads on my talk page. Since I've not done anything like that before, do I just go in the "edit" area and delete that way, or is there a different way to delete the whole thread? I had no idea I was an SPA -- I guess that's one thing I've accomplished on here. Lol. As always, thanks for your advice and help. ~Sincerely BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can just click the edit button and then CTRL-A to highlight everything, then hit delete, then hit publish changes at the bottom and the whole thread will disappear. Try it now!  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you! BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a relatively unexperienced editor here. Care to explain why did you make this edit? Does the previous version violate

Hello, Amazingcaptain. Certainly, I don't mind explaining. The reason why we must say "X was killed. Y pressed his knee on his neck..." instead of "X was killed by Y" is because all we have so far are autopsy reports where the medical examiner determined that the manner of death was homicide, and not who caused the death. Per the autopsy report, "Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner, as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process." So, in this case, maybe it was Chauvin on the neck. Maybe it was the other two on the chest and body. Maybe it was all of them, or maybe it was none of them. That's for a court to decide, which may convict some, all, or none of them as the case may be. Does that clear things up for you? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with that reasoning. Thanks. --Amazingcaptain (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just curious about the concern on Aquash article. I recommend reading Matthiessen's book. Interestingly, he was a CIA agent, but the book is respected by the Lakota people, as I understand. It's incredibly well documented, and a must-read for editors of articles on Indigenous peoples. BTW, where do I look for info on an article's past editors (if I need to clarify info)? Pasdecomplot Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To firm that up in the Aquash article, just add citations to the relevant sources, i.e., if the Matthiessen book says that Durham was an informant for the CIA, then add a citation to the relevant page number of the book (at the spot where "FBI" was changed to "CIA"). With regard to finding info on who has made what edits to an article, just click the "View History" tab (towards top-right) and you'll see the list going backwards in time. Click "older 50" or the 20/50/100/250/500 links to go further back in time, as most articles have lengthy lists of editors who have worked on them. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AzureCitizen - hope all is well with you!  Hope you don't mind me coming to your talk page asking you more questions.  I'll give you background and my questions will follow.
Background: First, today I made a revision in the subheading "Comments to Politico..." that discusses this Politico article [9] on the "Joe Biden Sexual Assault Page." In my revision, I added more information about Kelly Klett, a lawyer/acquaintance of Reade, who the WP article quotes from the Politico article (here [10] which I did just to give clarity to Klett's quote. 
Prior to my revision, the most recent version can be found here [11]
After I made my revision, I explained my revisions on the talk page.  Also today, and after my revision and after I discussed on the talk page, someone else made a revision leaving what I wrote about the lawyer/acquaintance, but deleted the quote (here [12] ).  I am concerned about deleting the quote for a few reasons: 1) The quote, or some version of the quote, has been included in that paragraph since May 15 when the Politico article was first added to the WP article by Avial Cloffprunker (here [13]) and 2) Without the quote, the sentence I elaborated on loses context by changes the meaning of what Kelly Klett said to Politico.

Second, the other editor made several other revisions

• Here, [14] the WP editor incorrectly asserts "imprecisely attributed quotation (direct quotes here imply these acquaintances said these words as a chorus"  -- However, as I discussed within my revision and again on the talk page, the WP editor is mistaken, the Politico article does quote several of Reade's acquaintances describing Reade in those words. 
  
• Here, [15] the WP editor rewrites the paragraph & asserts that he/she re-wrote the paragraph because "Take nicely wrought "reported," "asserted," "described" and substitute boring old "wp:SAID." For example, "reported" implies WP agrees with Korecki's slant/ (im-wp:BALANCE) @ Politico, which WP does not (which I know because I don't agree with it and I contribute content to WP)." 
  

I feel the new paragraph, that the WP editor re-wrote, is very awkward and does not flow (plus I disagree with that editor's explanation of what "reported" implies - but that's neither here nor there).

Here are my questions: 
1) If I revert the edits made, will I be in violation of 1RR?
2) If I am able to revert without violating 1RR -- should I explain my revert on the talk page before I make the revision?
I appreciate all your help in the past and hope you don't mind me still using you as my WP editor tutor. Sincerely, BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betsy! I don't have much time at the moment to look at the deeper specifics, but I can give you some quick (and simple) advice that may help. That particular article is under the most stringent restrictions, in that it has a 1RR restriction on reverts, plus it also as a 24 hour waiting period for re-instating something that you added or changed (see Page Restrictions Notice Here). As a result, no matter what you do on that article (add something, change something, or delete something), if anyone else reverses something you did in whole or in part (deleting something you added, reverting back something you changed, or adding the same thing back that you deleted), at a minimum you'll have to wait 24 hours (plus additionally discuss further on the Talk Page). If you don't wait and instead immediately revert, it's possible that the other editor may decide not to report it (same goes for others who are lurking and watching the edits), and just allow you to do it. But if anyone takes exception, it's buyer beware, because once you step over the line, you're at the mercy of whatever grace a sanctioning administrator feels like giving you, and they may not feeling like granting you any leeway on your offense. This means the safest course is always to just go straight to the talk page, post your best comments in an effort to persuade, and if nobody edits the article to change it to the way you think it should be, then wait the full 24 hours before firing off your one revert. Some editors like to ride the line and push the edge of what they can get away with it, but it usually comes back to bite in them in the end (the accumulation of a block log on their record, and with each successive block, future enforcement actions become harsher and harsher). All the more so on the political articles, which will just continue to get more insane as we march towards Election Day here in the United States. If you find an article getting very frustrating, it can be a very useful thing to give it a short break and promise yourself that you won't even look at the article till the next day (when you're fresh, and no longer under any revert restrictions). Wikipedia will always be here when you're ready to come back. :) Does that help? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AzureCitizen! You've given me an excellent, and easily understandable explanation of the 1RR process. You've been a great help. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on naming conventions of battles. Traditionally, the side that wins a battle names the battle, due to their usually remaining on the field after the victory, while the defeated army moves off of the location. The side that wins the war does not matter on this point.

Indeed, the site where the battles of First and Second Manassas took place is not called “Bull Run” by the National Park Service. It is called the Manassas National Battlefield Park, as Manassas is the correct and proper name.

Just to be clear, I don’t call the Battle of Antietam by the name the Battle of Sharpsburg, because it was a norther victory, and Antietam is the northern name. I would not want you to assume that because I am. Southerner that I improperly use southern battle names rather than the correct name: the one used by the victor of the battle.

You would do well to learn proper naming conventions. Drewusmc1066 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:COMMONNAME that has nothing to do with the stuff you think you know. This may seem counter-intuitive. The fact is, the long-term editors that write this encyclopedia decide how we do things here and drive-by onlookers who think they know better just leave. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting 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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They keep fighting about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dachau_liberation_reprisals&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan white 76 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I didn't see the news had been announced in the previous paragraph. It is, however, a bit buried. While any flamboyant announcement would be wholly inappropriate, do you not agree that a simple, unbiased, straightforward one-liner such as what I posted would be more appropriate in its own paragraph? Clepsydrae (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts! I can appreciate that right now, with the verdict being just a few hours old, many readers are stopping by Wikipedia to see the news and if it's set off in it's own paragraph at the end, it's easier to find. However, with regard to long-term article styling (for the many years to come), the phrasing in the preceding paragraph is what you'd expect to see in a more "long term" approach to encyclopedic writing style. Does that make sense? Regards, 23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Aye, and it certainly does make sense. While placing it in its own paragraph would temporarily aid quick confirmation of the news, Wikipedia is not, as you say, a news source. Clepsydrae (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot

So you find an interesting way to avoid a dangling modifier. Good job. Thanks :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When two editors are in disagreement over how to phrase something, and the difference boils down to a pair of transposed words with grammatical considerations, sometimes it's easier to just rephrase it with something else that achieves the same meaning. Problem resolved, and now everyone can move on! Something to add to your toolkit if you find yourself in a similar situation again down the road. That said, I did see that the other IP turned out to be

WP:BKFIP, so I'm glad to see there was an appropriate resolution there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

October 2022

Your manual revert on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article appears to have been made while a Talk page discussion is in progress on the Talk page there; the article has been restored while consensus is being determined on the Talk page. All editors are welcome to join the discussion, and no further edits to the article should be made until consensus is reached on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving while there's a open requested move discussion at

Killing of Caylee Anthony

Please check before moving that if there is an active RM discussion, especially when there is a discussion in progress banner on the article page. – robertsky (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hunter Biden

I thought that was a pretty good copyedit you did for what's now the opening of that laptop article. I thought that the version without the title up front sounded too much like launching into story-telling rather than description. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you should not have changed the intro at all, while all the commotion was (and is) going on at that talkpage, about the intro. But anyways, with the House Republicans sharpening their knives? I suspect more changes (don't know which direction) will be forthcoming, once the 118th US Congress commences. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to both comments above) Just trying to help with what appeared to be a very clumsy intro; I didn't read the Talk Page first and when looking at it later, I found much of confusing. When I did the re-write, I didn't investigate the particular assertions in the lead, instead I just spent five minutes re-ordering the existing content into what I thought was a straightforward approach. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Company commander

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Company commander is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company commander until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

FOARP (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TC)

Dračevica (župa)

Hello,

I kindly ask you to revert your latest edit in the Dračevica article. As you say, it is simpler, but the ruler's full title is relevant to the article, because it adds context to it. Tvrtko based his claim to kingship by being a maternal descendant of the Nemanjić dynasty who ruled Serbia in the Middle Ages. The region the article is about was a part of the Nemanjić domain before being conquered by the Kotromanić dynasty.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.123.180 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Unfortunately, your edit created an unnecessarily long pipelink when you inserted "

WP:NOPIPE, which guides editors to keep pipelinks simple and avoid making links longer than necessary, which makes the wikitext harder to read. If you want to add additional context to the Dračevica article that contains more information about Tvrtko, try adding that elsewhere in the article as ordinary text instead of trying to insert it inside of blue colored pipe links. If more is added about Tvrtko, however, try to keep it relevant. With regard to the Dračevica article when the town of Novi was founded, it is relevant that Tvrtko was the King of Bosnia, but it's not particularly relevant that he was also the King of Serbia, Pomorje, and the Western Areas. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you look at the diff before reverting? There was substantial copyediting apart from the "name in lead" issue you mentioned in the edit summary. I'm not really interested in having an edit war over this, but I would at least appreciate if you read before rolling back. jp×g🗯️ 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the diff, and saw that the perpetrator's name was censored out in four locations between the lead and body. Other than changing the paragraph locations, what other substantial copyediting were you referring to? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your focus is on the perpetrator being an "irrelevant loser" and "worthless piece of trash", I think you should consider that your personal views may be clouding your objectivity on trying to write the best encyclopedic version of the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would call it "censorship" to refer to somebody using a pronoun. I do not think the information should be removed from the article. It just doesn't seem

WP:DUE to mention them in the lead, then in the infobox, then several more times in the section on the shooting, then in the investigation section, then in two paragraphs in an entire "perpetrator" section devoted to them. Their sole relevance is that they shot a gun at somebody and then died sixty seconds later. They're not still on the loose, they didn't have any impact on society or culture or history -- they just aren't notable, and I think mentioning them a couple times is fine. jp×g🗯️ 05:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, the event itself (the Greenwood Park Mall shooting) is what's notable. No, the perpetrator didn't have an impact or society, or culture, or history. Still, it reads better just to name the person in the context wherever they need to be referred to, as opposed to "perpetrator" or "shooter." That applies to all parts of the article (lead, infobox, body). Same goes for the guy who shot him; I wouldn't want to see his name replaced with "the bystander" in parts of the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]