User talk:TheHistoryBuff101

Hi TheHistoryBuff101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit: [1] that changed an established spelling of "US" to "U.S.", because the Manual of Style says that the spelling should be retained in this case. There were several similar edits in

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

MOS:US. --IamNotU (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

The single biggest content problem is potential and/or actual textual plagiarism -- one of the main editors of those articles until earlier this year

WP:GACR

#1)

Other (lesser) problems include

• potential POV issues (one of the articles' main editors got very, very angry when I made a talk page comment that mentioned in an off-handed manner that children are the main audience for these films and the source of most of their revenue; the Black Panther article actually doesn't point this pretty basic fact out directly, even though much of what it does say relies on the assumptions that readers are already aware of the fact, and I suspect it might be the denialism of one editor, or a small cadre of editors, working on them) (
  WP:GACR
  #4 and kinda #3) and
• the fact that the character descriptions in the cast list are complete
  WP:GACR
  #2)
• Additionally, as has been pointed out recently on the Captain Marvel talk page but was arguably a more serious issue with Avengers: Endgame, a lot of the poster billing is nothing but misleading, non-spoiler, marketing fluff, or the result of negotiations with major actors to work for less or get less screen time than they might otherwise claim if their name appears on the poster of a major blockbuster, and is not an objective measure of each cast member's prominence in the film itself by any measure; the articles' "owners" frequently claim that it's a neutral and incontrovertible means of avoiding people giving bullet points to their favourite actor or character, but there's actually nothing neutral about it, and once the films have been released and we have reviews by professional film critics, we really shouldn't be using that criterion. It has also never, apparently, been supported by consensus among uninvolved editors, but rather is shoehorned in as to all the articles by a small group of editors who then call it the
  WP:STATUSQUO
  (which I should point out doesn't actually apply to articles on major films that see huge floods of attention and massive changes at certain periods, and started out spending months or years in the draft space where the majority of our editors didn't even know they existed).
• There is also stability; articles that are subject to frequent
  WP:GACR
  #5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi TheHistoryBuff101,

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

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

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

In general, when working with images:

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

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

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

Please do not bypass redirects in

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

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

Most of your changes I left alone, as subsequent edits made them too difficult to undo one by one. Going forward, however, please do not make any further changes of this nature, unless it explicitly falls under one of the exceptions noted at

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

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

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

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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Again you are still altering links in violation of

WP:NOTBROKEN. Please refrain from doing do as this is considered disruptive. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yet again you are either ignoring what I'm saying, or just not reading, but you are continuing to violate

WP:NOTBROKEN with your edits. If you continue with this disruptive editing you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

I think considering your current editing spree you need to read

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

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

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

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

At this point there's either a strong

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

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

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