![]() |
Thanks Brechindunc ( talk) 16:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
For your joint contributions and brilliant copyediting efforts in bringing this article Operation Barbarossa to GA-status, I award you, EyeTruth, Delldot, GeneralizationsAreBad, Nick-D, Irondome, Hashi0707, P. S. Burton, MisterBee1966, Obenritter, and everyone else I forgot to mention this Barnstar! Awesome job, keep it up. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 18:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, GeneralizationsAreBad. You might want to bookmark MOS:ABBR. While it's fine that you changed the subheader "US Military" to "U.S. Military" in the Rape during the occupation of Germany article, it wasn't necessary. The main thing to check on in an article is the consistency of use. If there are other instances of the use of "US" in the body of the article, it's only important that the formats agree with each other. This applies to date formats, etc.
Welcome, and happy editing! -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Funny userpage images and captions. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your specific concerns with the article? WeldNeck ( talk) 02:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to radically revise the article or slant it dramatically. I'm just interested in the subject and want to improve it in any way I can.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 13:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright. If the No Gun Ri Massacre dispute does not calm down, I am prepared to go through dispute resolution or just disengage entirely and leave. That would be a real shame, since I want to help improve this article, but the situation there is becoming hostile. The personal attacks are getting out of hand, and deletion of talk pages is totally unacceptable. Rant complete.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on simply giving Weld free reign in a "controversy" section and leaving it at that? There does seem to be a minority dissenting opinion on the topic. I'm not totally convinced that it isn't WP:FRINGE, but it might solve a lot of WP:UNDUE arguments in the lead and main body if we include the dissenters but confine them to a clearly marked cantonment area.
My immediate thought is "wow that's a bad idea", and I envision the controversy section becoming longer than the article. Then we get protracted discussions about a WP:POVFORK when it becomes clear that the controversy section is big enough to be it's own article.
On the other hand I fully expect that it will be warfare for inches the whole way through, unless one or another editor decides they're going to do what they want, and gets banned for warring. Perhaps it only delays the consensus on whether a the dissenters are noteworthy. It is tempting to find a quick fix though. The ANI attracted a lot of attention to the article, and I wonder how long that patience will last. Realistically, this could take months. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks Brechindunc ( talk) 16:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
For your joint contributions and brilliant copyediting efforts in bringing this article Operation Barbarossa to GA-status, I award you, EyeTruth, Delldot, GeneralizationsAreBad, Nick-D, Irondome, Hashi0707, P. S. Burton, MisterBee1966, Obenritter, and everyone else I forgot to mention this Barnstar! Awesome job, keep it up. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 18:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, GeneralizationsAreBad. You might want to bookmark MOS:ABBR. While it's fine that you changed the subheader "US Military" to "U.S. Military" in the Rape during the occupation of Germany article, it wasn't necessary. The main thing to check on in an article is the consistency of use. If there are other instances of the use of "US" in the body of the article, it's only important that the formats agree with each other. This applies to date formats, etc.
Welcome, and happy editing! -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Funny userpage images and captions. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your specific concerns with the article? WeldNeck ( talk) 02:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to radically revise the article or slant it dramatically. I'm just interested in the subject and want to improve it in any way I can.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 13:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright. If the No Gun Ri Massacre dispute does not calm down, I am prepared to go through dispute resolution or just disengage entirely and leave. That would be a real shame, since I want to help improve this article, but the situation there is becoming hostile. The personal attacks are getting out of hand, and deletion of talk pages is totally unacceptable. Rant complete.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on simply giving Weld free reign in a "controversy" section and leaving it at that? There does seem to be a minority dissenting opinion on the topic. I'm not totally convinced that it isn't WP:FRINGE, but it might solve a lot of WP:UNDUE arguments in the lead and main body if we include the dissenters but confine them to a clearly marked cantonment area.
My immediate thought is "wow that's a bad idea", and I envision the controversy section becoming longer than the article. Then we get protracted discussions about a WP:POVFORK when it becomes clear that the controversy section is big enough to be it's own article.
On the other hand I fully expect that it will be warfare for inches the whole way through, unless one or another editor decides they're going to do what they want, and gets banned for warring. Perhaps it only delays the consensus on whether a the dissenters are noteworthy. It is tempting to find a quick fix though. The ANI attracted a lot of attention to the article, and I wonder how long that patience will last. Realistically, this could take months. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)