• For Brig. Gen F.W. Hill - in addition to the archive files, these sources mention the officer: [1] and [2] and [3]

198.84.253.202 ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have created User:198.84.253.202/sandbox, in case you would find it useful. — Paleo Neonate – 04:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 198.84.253.202. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! paul2520 ( talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply

If they're getting a bit out of hand, might it be easier to do an abbreviated one under a hatnote to a general Oob page for 1914? Keith-264 ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264: For the Germans certainly (since that page seems to have an appropriate level of detail), however the page about the French ( French Army order of battle (1914)) is clearly lacking in detail. Also, orders of battle were a flexible thing and it might be that even the OOB on 21st August is different from the one planned for mobilization (the example in this case being the cavalry brigade created by merging regiments from the 19th and 37th Divisions. Another alternative might be to make a separate article about the order of battle (as is already common with WWII battles Category:World War II orders of battle and even a few major ones from WWI Category:World War I orders of battle) and then yes have an abbreviated one in the article (listing only corps?). 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm not that interested in them but have done a couple of (short) Oob as articles. Keith-264 ( talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

DB-R3 is for inplausible redirects or obvious misnomers. Treatment risk --> iatrogenesis is neither. Feel free to substitute a better target or take it to WP:RFD but treatment risks is lniked from a template so we need something there, and this seemed the most obvious choice. Guy ( Help!) 01:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: But treatment risks could also redirect, say, to Side effect, or to any page about a treatment that has risks. As such, the redirect is implausible (and, anyway, Iatrogenesis should be merged with Side effect per WP:COMMONNAME), or at the very least inappropriately targeted. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 01:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sure. I see you changed the target, I am fine with that - but it was never implausible, just - in your view - incorrect. Iatrogenesis is, by definition, a treatment risk. Guy ( Help!) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, why don't you create an account? You've been editing for some time and you use this IP page like a user page, but you're missing out on obvious benefits; (IP masked, a sandbox, article creation, a watchlist, custom preferences, etc., etc.) It's free, it's easy, it's quick, you can any anonymous web-based email... you can even be User:19884253202 if you want. You appear to be an involved editor making worthwhile contributions, I'm just surprised you don't have an account. Anyways... Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi again

I though I'd take another stab at this question, (I'm not sure you caught it the first time). With all your activity and contributions here, why don't you create an account? Not only are there benefits for you, but it makes it easier for others interacting with you, such as using 'ping', etc. Like I said, just curious... Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 13:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Thewolfchild:Because, until maybe the most recent controversy (where some seem to freely enjoy slapping the title "sock" to anybody who disagrees), there wasn't any reason I might reconsider my present situation. I think the most recent events tend to confirm with what you say, but there are still a few outgoing matters I wish to get solved (notably, expanding yet another battle, and one article which I started editing under a previous IP, and got sidetracked in the process because of more pressing real-life work to be done and further distracting matters on-wiki [such as one WP:CIR editor, the Olympics, various maintenance/readability edits, a discussion about a national anthem, etc...] 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 02:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

If you click Preferences at the top of your screen then Gadgets and scroll nearly all the way down to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" and tick the box, a blue link goes orange instead if it leads to a disambiguation page, which lets you know to click on and find the right link. It doesn't always work but Augustin Michel came up via Namur 1914. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264: Just out of curiosity, do IP users have access to "Preferences" and "Gadgets"...? - ^theWOLFchild 16:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Nay. As for the link for General Michel, I had looked at Michel (name) but couldn't find it (i.e. I added the link this morning) so I just assumed that, as most not-that-important historical figures, he was unknown enough that he didn't have an article. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Apols, I didn't know. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you have a link to the French Official Account V (ii) pp. 670–675 I could look at? I have the interweb link [4] but I find it difficult to work out where to go from that page. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264: Here - The part you're looking for exactly is "L'offensive d'avril 1917 [...]", Volume 2. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 13:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Brilliant, can I do anything in return? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I've managed to get the gist for 31 July and 22 October, which has helped put the French back into the battle but I can't find any maps; are they separate? I've had a go on the Gallica search but no luck. Help much appreciated. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264:The maps are on the Defense Ministry "Memoire des Hommes" website (can't be downloaded offline in any usable resolution, but still the quality on the website is really good) - here, just click on the expendable list at the appropriate place (i.e. in this case starting with tome V) and you should be able to find the maps. Cheers, 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 12:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much, that's most helpful. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Especially clarifying west and east, I forgot that French descriptions go from left to right. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Er can I ponce another favour? I'd like a link to the part of the FOH that covers the attack on Serre (Battle of Hebuterne) 7–13 June 1915 please. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264:Sorry for the late answer, here (starting in the middle of p. 113) it is, however AFGG names it as the Battle of Toutvent farm (though it is indeed an attack on Serre (p. 114) - and the dates (June 7-13) match). According to this, this is indeed the correct battle. The 2 maps provided on the French Defense Ministry site (Tome III no. 7 and 8) confirm this. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Keith-264:The second of the linked sites links to a French page (Archives du Pas-de-Calais) which contains details from the diaries of individual units. [5] It also gives a casualty count. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 21:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks babe. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to the article on Oleg Znarok. 47.144.144.50 ( talk) 20:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for improving and expanding the risks section. Deuterostome (Talk) 18:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Frederic William Hill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gbawden ( talk) 08:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

You recently changed something I have written on the page Rwandan genocide. Please take a look at my explanation here. Uglemat ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Gospel rock. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. Please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ToBeFree: There seems to be broad consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel rock (where I have commented) to redirect to the given target. There is furthermore no point in keeping content which is clearly against policy ( WP:OR). Therefore, I did what was the most reasonable result and boldly redirected the page. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 21:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I did not see correctly how much had been deleted; I thought that the AfD template was gone too. My above message does not really make sense then. About consensus, your redirect replaced the whole rest of the page and basically deletes it before the deletion discussion has finished. Closing a deletion discussion on your own that way, less than 24 hours after its creation, seems to be too early to me. "Consensus" may well change during a discussion. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Understood. I'll let the AfD run for longer 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the initial wrong warning, and thank you for your patience. While waiting for the likely result to actually happen, enjoy this ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello Anon. I became interested in the work of User:Histragic when I saw Whaling in the United Kingdom appear out of what seemed like thin air, but was actually a solid basis of offline research, aka books. I want to encourage this newcomer, who expressed intention on working on other related articles, hence Thomas Sturge. You issued that article with a speedy delete, mistakenly thinking it was a hoax. You then apologised here - and no one could ask for a better apology, and of course Wikipedia needs vigilant vandal-fighters. But the alacrity of your deletion request exemplifies why we ask each other not to bite the newcomers. If you had looked at Histragic's stellar record of the past couple of weeks, you would have seen the genuineness of this editor's intentions and access to information. Please, next time you are suspicious of a new article, could I ask you to check it out a little further, and give a new editor the benefit of the doubt? The last thing I want to see is our editing practices pushing away potential contributors. Thank you. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed, my bad. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 00:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your graciousness. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 01:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! I have done some work to improve the newly created article Genesys (RPG). Does the work I've done help address the concerns you've listed for your proposal for deletion? I hope so! Eric42 ( talk) 03:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Eric42: It is less promotional with the extra bits added. However, Wikipedia is not a manual (or a rulebook) and the details about dice colours are too much. I went ahead and removed them. However, this still does not address the notability issue. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 04:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- SchroCat ( talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, as stated at the top of my talk page, I prefer questions about articles to be posted on the article talk page. I moved your question there and will respond shortly. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Huh. I forgot to save the following on the AFD, and lost session data, and the AFD was even closed, and yet the response still remained intact in the editing window all day, so I might as well post it here. Verb tenses are left intact because of this background, even though the article being deleted and your talk page not being "this discussion" make it somewhat awkward reading.

Thank you for the advice, but I don't really think it would have been appropriate for me to directly tag for speedy deletion when there's already an AFD open. If the page got deleted, this discussion would ... well, maybe the deleting admin would also shut down this AFD as being redundant, but I can't check the procedure on this matter because all the precedents have been deleted. :P Alternatively, I could NAC this discussion with "AFD, redundant, as article meets CSD", but that seems even worse.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

GizzyCatBella ( talk) 04:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you from the Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC. Closers are often quick to discount IP !votes, IP !votes are too often socks or unreliable. That's clearly not true in your case. The numbers posted in that closure strongly suggest that the closers completely discarded your !vote and the other IP !vote. (My count is 3 off from their count, and discarding two IP !votes reduces the discrepancy down to 1.) It probably didn't change the outcome, but having a named account will eliminate the high risk of your !votes being discounted. Alsee ( talk) 11:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Closers are often quick to discount IP !votes" - what do you base that on? (I agree that it would be beneficial for this user to register, but that's his decision). - ^theWOLFchild 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thewolfchild I don't have a good link to cite offhand. My general recollection is that many people consider IP votes inherently suspicious or unreliable. Closes are required to be "within reason". I have a general recollection that closers are given particularly broad discretion in handling IP !votes, and that discounting IP votes as suspicious or unreliable is firmly accepted as "within reason".

Personally I give evidence and credible-novel-arguments from IP's full weight, and I cautiously lean towards including them in raw-headcounts unless I have specific concerns. After taking a glance at this IP(198.84.253.202), I'd consider them more reliable than many named-accounts. They are clearly extremely experienced and apparently respected. This is in stark contrast to the other IP in the wikidata RFC, Contributions/86.187.162.55. Not only does that IP have only 1 edit (the vote itself), the entire Contributions/86.187.162.* range has only scattered edits. Many of IPs in that range get hit with blocks after just a few edits. There are several possible scenarios regarding the voter, but most of them badly discredit the vote. Alsee ( talk) 08:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your hard work closing RfCs, 198.84.253.202. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Non-registered user closing RfC prompted by one of your closes about whether unregistered users can close RfCs. Cunard ( talk) 02:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you! RafaelS1979 ( talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello 198.84.253.202! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim commons ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply