User talk:Xyl 54/Archive June 2012-May 2014
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"ss" transliteration of eszett
Why was I singled out for engaging in an edit war when it was the other party who initiated the dispute by reverting my edit?
As for citations they should not be necessary in a matter this cut and dried, but let me repeat what I posted on Michael's talk page, namely my own two hardcover English language Encyclopedia Brittanicas (1966 and 1932 editions), and numerous examples of Wiki articles on famous Germans (Gauss, Hess, Dollfuss and 8 other Germans named Strauss) using "ss" transliteration rather than eszett.
Our problem is that Wiki Germanophones create new articles using eszett, and have in the past displayed a totally unreasonable attitude toward the standard transliteration, an attitude which for some unknown reason Anglophone staff have a habit of not standing up to.
There should be a new auto editing template which automatically renders eszett as "ss" in the English Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- In the first place you weren’t "singled out"; the message I sent you was exactly the same as the one I sent Michael.
- Second, it was not “the other party that initiated the dispute” by reverting your edit; as all changes here remain with the consent of everyone else, it is perfectly appropriate to revert a bold edit. The correct course for you was to open a discussion on the article page and come to an agreement, like I said above, so it was this edit that constituted edit warring, not any other.
- As far as the rest of this goes, the issue here is what to do on this page, so it’s irrelevant what happens on 8 other pages named Strauss; and intemperate comments about “Germanophones”, and accusations of “not standing up to” (whatever) are unhelpful.
- But if you have specific comments to make on the article title here, I suggest you add them to the section above, rather than starting another thread; it just fragments the discussion. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- In fact these comments probably shouldn’t be here at all; I’ve moved them to my talk page if you want to pursue these points. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- A pennyworth from a Brit, where there are (almost) no accents: they are a complete pain when conducting electronic searches using naïve search algorithms, because the search string doesn't match the target exactly, hence no match is returned. (I know some such as Google are smarter than that, but many academic search engines refuse to return papers by authors with accents.) Do we want WP articles not to turn up at the top of the list? --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, have posted response to your query on my talk page. (Why doesn't WP have IM? Just a thought.) --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. When you recently edited List of requisitioned trawlers of the Royal Navy (WWII), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Philip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited Admiralty tug, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Minesweeper and Salvage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No hard feelings
It was not you who sparked off the deep antagonism and contempt which I now bear toward Wikipedia and many of its editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah! I'm glad at least there are no hard feelings between us (though I am saddened by the rest of what you say) (Sorry for not replying earlier BTW; I've been taking a break) Xyl 54 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Presidency armies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahratta War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
SNCF WWII
Hello Xyl, I just added another comment on the SNCF discussion with some new observations and a broad suggestion for what to do with the section. I will need a bit more time to prepare something more specific. I hope you don't mind the wait, and will be open to helping when I am ready. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: USS Iowa material removal
Just as an FYI, the reason why so a lengthy description had been included was due to the fact that on larger browsers the text and pictures tended to bunch up, so I had added extra text to help alleviate that problem. Now that was a while back, and we've had a number of on sight software updates, so I do not think this'll be as big a problem, but in case you were curious that was the reason for the all the added text. Incidentally, nice catch on the removal of the ref, most people do not think to check that before moving on. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reducing the material in the infobox is out of the question do to quality control issues related to page content at Featured level, which leaves us really only two options: let sleeping dogs lie, or remove the image from the article and thus solve the problem once and for all. I favor option one myself, but I suspect that sooner or later its gonna default to option 2 since the material in the ship page hasn't seen a quality control inspection review in something like four years time. When I finally get around to putting the article up at PR or FAR I suspect someones gonna tell me the image has to go, but until then I think it best just to let it lie. At any rate, thanks for the reply (though to be honest I really wasn't expecting it). Its nice to hear back from people these days, all the more so with wiki-society in a state of collapse. Nice to remembered :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
SNCF WWII Draft
Hello Xyl, I have finally posted my new proposed version of the World War II section at Talk:SNCF#Problems_with_the_WWII_section.... I hope you will be available to review it. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Xyl 54, I just noticed you had been offline when I posted my latest request with you about the SNCF article. Since you last commented, I've proposed a replacement section which was implemented by one editor, although this editor did not remove any of the other erroneous, undue material. If you have the time soon, I would be interested in seeing your feedback on the ongoing thread. Thanks again, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits and comments on the SNCF article last week. I have just made a reply on the SNCF discussion page and I would very much like to have your input soon. I will keep a close watch and try to respond in a timely manner. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: what ship?
I'm afraid I don't know what ship that was. You may be better asking at WT:MILHIST where there are many expert in such matters. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Holocaust train France Section
Hello Xyl, and a Happy New Year to you. The more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train#Modern day legacy that I had promised late last year is finished and I have left a proposal at Talk:Holocaust_train#Inaccuracies_in_Modern_day_legacy:_France. I hope you are available to provide your input. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
PS Thanks for the discussion warning on my talkpage; as a WikiOgre I otherwise probably would have missed it... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
TB#2
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Hill-class trawler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Minesweeper
- Military-class trawler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Minesweeper
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Torpedoboot Ausland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sca
"Oblt" is a recognized abbreviation.... Recognized by whom? You won't find it in any English dictionary, and it makes no sense whatever to English readers who don't know German. (I do, but I had to think about it for a minute. And BTW, as an abbreviation it should contain a period.)
We serve English readers much better by explaining foreign terms rather than just using them because a few WP eds focused on military history are familiar with them.
That's why Kriegsmarine should be replaced with "Navy." Kriegsmarine is not English, as I believe the referenced discussion showed. I discussed this point with User talk:IIIraute after the discussion, who replied that "both terms are correct - but this might interest you —"
Check it out.
Re linking everything in sight, it serves no purpose to link "German" (German), as it's self-evident that the word "German" needs no explanation. Ditto for some of the other frequently linked common words.
It seems to me that you are trying to circumvent the conclusions of the recent discussion. Sca (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Illraute
Please use: [Kriegsmarine]→(Kriegsmarine), [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine|Navy]→(German Navy), "or" [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine]→(German Kriegsmarine). Preferably, not the latter. Thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conf.) No problem - nothing wrong. I think there is a misunderstanding. I was more or less replying to Sca's message. [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine|Navy]→(German Navy), [with links to "Nazi Germany" and "Kriegsmarine"] is absolutely fine - so please do add the according links, i.e: [Kriegsmarine]→(Kriegsmarine), [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine|Navy]→(German Navy), "or even" [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine]→(German Kriegsmarine). That "is" what I wanted to say with my previous message.--IIIraute (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. "→" = "for". --IIIraute (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Bomzibar
As Hawkeye ended the discussion about this on his user talk page I think I write you here. (and please reply here so the discussion is traceable) If you are feared of a flood of revisionist edits because you dont use the term Nazi any longer in relation with German WWII forces, just take a look at all this articles regarding units of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units that fought on the eastern and Balkan fronts and this huge number of articles regarding Knights Cross recipients (most books used on them are not allowed or only in combination with other sources in de:Wiki) and count how often you read something about massacres and war crimes in their area of command or area of action. This problem is a whole lot bigger than the possibility the German War Navy could not be seen as connected to the totalist national socialist regime. Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Melpomène-class torpedo boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eddystone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
re:HSwMS Äran
You're welcome. Nice to be of assistance. Yep, I did get a thank you-notice. That function was new to me, and quite interesting. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
re:HMS/HSwMS etc
Hi again. I'll go looking around a bit and see what I can find. NATO wasn't mentioned in the last discussion, as Sweden isn't a NATO member, but I'll see what I can find. First impression is that it seems to be a bit of challenge to dig up an official NATO prefix list. Manxruler (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry to barge in like that. The Swedish military has two sources on-line on the subject [1] and [ http://eunavfor.eu/eu-naval-force-warship-hms-carlskrona-conducts-medical-evacuation-exercise/] (actually EU). Hope this helps. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Maddox (DD-168) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |Ship name=''Doblestny'' ("Valiant")</br>(or ''Zhyostky'' ("Rigid")
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Operation Doppelschlag
Article: Operation Doppelschlag.
What you be nice enough to update the assessment for this article? I do have my own assessment, I would like someone else (for example, yourself) to do the assessment. I appreciate you doing the Copyedit. Adamdaley (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
HMS Gladiolus (K34)
I noticed that you did some work on HMS Gladiolus (K34). I did not do a deep dive into the article history; nevertheless you may be able to help. In the fate section the loss is potentially linked to U-558 or U-432. The U-553 article, supported by the data on uboat.net, links the loss to U-553. This is also the same link provided in the HMS Gladiolus (K34) article. Maybe you can help clarify? Thanks and sorry for the disturbance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Further issues with SNCF article
Hello, xyl 54. Thanks again for your help with the SNCF article previously. While the section was previously improved greatly, it still has issues, and I would like to see if you can help me again. I have taken the slightly bolder step of adding a template to note this dispute. However, I would like to avoid further edits, provided I can get assistance from other editors. To this end, I have explained the situation on the article's discussion page, and would appreciate your involvement again. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again, Xyl 54. I hope that you had a pleasant holidays. Since our last messages discussing the SNCF article in early December, have you been able to return to the article to consider making the edits you had suggested? In case you had not seen, I replied on December 10, to express my agreement with the specific course of action you had outlined. As I explained, my previous concern had been that the claims about SNCF's actions should be stated alongside the context provided by Marrus and Klarsfeld and not separated, so I am content with your suggestion of moving all of this information together. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air raid on Bari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Displacement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pluviôse-class submarine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Holland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brumaire-class submarine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- French submarine Cugnot (Q76) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rochefort
- French submarine Fresnel (Q65) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rochefort
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Moonstone (T90), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)