User talk:DarthRad

Welcome!

Hello, DarthRad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bourge^talk 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panther image from Zaloga

Hi, I beleive you are required to provide a rational for fair use, regarding each use of File:Burnt out Panther AusfG Battle of the Bulge.jpg and File:Burnt out Panther Ausf G Battle of the Bulge.jpg. Also, I don't think a several megapixel image will be accepted as fair use, around 300 px width is typically accepted. Hohum (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added a rationale manually. These are usually put inside a Template:Non-free use rationale corresponding to each article the image is used for. The high resolution is still likely to be a problem. Hohum (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review of the credits for this photograph, it is quite clear that these are U.S. Army photos, as Zaloga credits the National Archives and Records Administration for this photo in one book, and the U.S. Army in another book. Took me a while to figure this out.

DarthRad (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman edits

Could you please be careful not to incorporate blatant POV into the article? Labeling an entire article section a 'folly' is pushing a POV, no matter how well-founded your belief. I happen to agree with you that the TD doctrine was nuts, but we cannot insert our personal opinions in the article in such a fashion.

I urge you to make use of the article talk pages in the future. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Burnt out Panther Ausf G Battle of the Bulge.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Burnt out Panther Ausf G Battle of the Bulge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tiger I Crashed Through Bridge.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tiger I Crashed Through Bridge.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hohum (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tigers In A Dale.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tigers In A Dale.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hohum (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Burnt out Panther AusfG Battle of the Bulge.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Burnt out Panther AusfG Battle of the Bulge.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hohum (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use resolution

The three files I've tagged are all far too high a resolution to comply with fair use per WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2. Hohum (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your question on my talkpage. "A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work." (Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2). i.e. if it's good enough to print out as well as in the book, it's too high. I believe the guideline is to have the image size just big enough to convey what is required, while some administrators make an arbitrary cap at about 300 pixel width. Hohum (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit style

Please use the Show Preview button to preview your edits. Please don't clutter the article history with those small edits to the layout by clicking on save and reviewing it then. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Preview a couple of times and it bombed and I lost all my writing and so I have not trusted it since. This is just the way I normally write, in small increments. DarthRad (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Tiger_I_-_M26_Killer.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tiger_I_-_M26_Killer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the picture is in his book does not give him copyright over the picture. First off, he just stole the picture from somebody else. Secondly, the Nazis took the original picture and since they lost the War, they have no copyrights to the photograph. So any of this stuff is BS. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit style

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to M26 Pershing, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. ja_62 (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:T-34 Blown Apart.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:T-34 Blown Apart.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the picture is in his book does not give him copyright over the picture. First off, he just stole the picture from somebody else. Secondly, the Nazis took the original picture and since they lost the War, they have no copyrights to the photograph. So any of this stuff is BS. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had put down the "U.S. Government Source" for the licensing. Not sure why additional information is required. But I have added more detailed information. This photo was scanned from the book Armored Thunderbolt (2008) by Steven Zaloga. Here is the long version of the explanation for the source of this photograph:

Zaloga states in the book's Bibliography (p. 347):

"In view of the large number of photos used in this book, a few words about World War II photographic archives are necessary. Unless otherwise noted, all the photos in this book are official U.S. Army photos, primarily taken by the U.S. signal Corps but also by the Ordnance Department, Armored Board, and other official organizations."

Only a very small number of the photographs from this book are identified as coming from private sources, e.g. the Patton Museum, and the Pilsudski Institute. This particular photograph was not specifically labeled as such, and so by default, according to the author's own words, this is a U.S. Army photo.

DarthRad (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had put down the "U.S. Government Source" for the licensing. Not sure why additional information is required. But I have added more detailed information. This photo was scanned from the book Armored Thunderbolt (2008) by Steven Zaloga. Here is the long version of the explanation for the source of this photograph:

Zaloga states in the book's Bibliography (p. 347):

"In view of the large number of photos used in this book, a few words about World War II photographic archives are necessary. Unless otherwise noted, all the photos in this book are official U.S. Army photos, primarily taken by the U.S. signal Corps but also by the Ordnance Department, Armored Board, and other official organizations."

Only a very small number of the photographs from this book are identified as coming from private sources, e.g. the Patton Museum, and the Pilsudski Institute. This particular photograph was not specifically labeled as such, and so by default, according to the author's own words, this is a U.S. Army photo.

DarthRad (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:M26 Fireball 800pix.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:M26 Fireball 800pix.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please delete this redundant photo. It was a mistake. DarthRad (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks For Wasting My Sunday Afternoon

I have read Your message. A few things about images and Wikipedia, have You read Our image use policy, especially the 2 minimal requirements?

I wonder why You uploaded File:T26 turret on M4 chassis.jpg, File:M26 Super Pershing.jpg without any source infos?

In the future please do not attack other users, and observe from Our main page: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Currently there are no policies in place to restrict "tank" articles to historians or tank experts.

Looking at Your talk page one may comment, that a person who uploads images without sources, proper licenses and rationales is not benefiting Wikipedia and must stop uploading images.

Remember: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it.

Regards, feydey (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am baffled by your inability to read the "Source" statements on both of those file images. They were right there underneath the photographs in both files. Have you checked your reading glasses? To make it easier for you, I re-formatted the word "Source" in a big bold black heading for both files. Wikipedia rules for inputting this information are sketchy at best. Should I format the word "Source" in large bold red color so that all half-blind Wikipedia "editors" can see it? What exactly is necessary for you to be able to see something that is already there?

CAN YOU SEE THE "SOURCE" INFORMATION NOW?

• Every single image I have ever uploaded has eventually had the proper licensing information and rationales for non-free fair use. Some of these image files I edited to satisfy the standards set forth by editors who were kind enough to inform me of what they felt was required. These editors did not just arbitrarily delete these files without warning - instead they offered up helpful advice. I am still learning my way around this Wikipedia labyrinth and I do appreciate the advice of these editors.

• Editors like you on the other hand seem to make up new rules as you go along. In addition, you completely ignore what is written already into the image files (including all the required source information and rationales for fair use, etc.), and you just generally seem to like to screw up people's work because it gives you a sense of power and accomplishment. There are a lot of Wikipedia editors out there like that, I have discovered.

• "Collaboration" is the process of working with other people towards a common goal. I would indeed appreciate advice how to negotiate this Wikipedia labyrinth, instead of just having my work arbitrarily deleted without warning, thus forcing me to waste time re-creating something that I did not have the foresight to save. Had you offered such advice, I would consider it to be "collaboration". But you chose the path of a high and mighty Wikipedia Editor who just reaches down and smites whatever it is that you feel deserves to be smitten down. There are lots of self-appointed, and very self-important Wikipedia editors around like you, I have discovered. It is indeed often very hard to distinguish what you "editors" have done from the many VANDALS out there that just go around totally screwing up other people's work. It took me a bit of work to track down your footprints in deleting those two photos from the Tiger I and M26 Pershing articles and to discover that YOU were the one who had done the dirty deed. Did you ever think about sending me a little note first so as to avoid all this nastiness?

• I had uploaded several image files into other tank articles without any incident or trouble, using the exact same methodology as the two files you deleted. So, in my view, you decided to change the rules. Without bothering to advise me as to what you think the rules ought to be. Then you have the gall to lecture me about "collaboration". You, sir, are in the wrong, not me.

DarthRad (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is a n00b. just ignore him, DarthRad. [redacted] User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tigers In A Dale.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tigers In A Dale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bunning portrait

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DarthRad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DarthRad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DarthRad. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DarthRad. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Curtiss Wright

Hi DarthRad -

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to connect with you but I wonder if you could assist me. I am interested in writing a history of the Curtiss Wright earthmoving machinery line but have very limited information. I noticed on Amazon that you did an amazing summary of one of their aviation books and wondered if you would know of or have any background on their construction equipment line. If so, can I provide you with my email? Thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Out4Coffee (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so late in getting back to you! Things have been so busy for me the last two years, have not been checking in my wikipedia page. Anyway, no, not really I don't know much about Curtiss Wright after the period of time covered in the two books I reviewed on Amazon. DarthRad (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:T-34 Blown Apart.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:T-34 Blown Apart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your screaming, vulgar edit summaries, and other vulgar comments, are uncivil. Please stop. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that edits that you disagree with are not "vandalism". 331dot (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility and unnecessarily vulgar language needs to stop. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Stepho did to my edit on the SR-71 article was pure and simple Vandalism.

Stepho did not even seem to read my edit, which was detailed and well referenced, and went through a step by step process explaining why the original version that I was correcting could not possibly be correct.

Stepho either did not have the knowledge to understand my edit, or, because my edit was designed to be easily understandable to anybody with a high school level Science education, probably never even bothered to read my edit and the several references I put into it, and that, to me, constitutes Vandalism.

An "editor" by definition, is somebody who "edits", looking for mistakes, checking the facts, grammar, proper referencing, etc., seeking only to improve upon the article. The only reason a new edit should be flat out removed is if the new edit is totally non-factual or just bad for the article in some way.

A Vandal is somebody who just removes, steals, or destroys somebody else's work and the time they put into that work, for.... whatever reason, maybe because they feel like doing so, without bothering to consider what it is they have just removed or destroyed..

Anybody who does that only serves to make Wikipedia a far less accurate and factual place by discouraging other people from actually taking the time out to correct the many factual errors that persist in Wikipedia.

I like Wikipedia, and used to contribute a lot more to it when I had more time. But Vandals pretending to be Editors drive me crazy. And you should know that a lot of people are discouraged from engaging in these battles with these self-important Wikipedia Editors, and that is why Wikipedia continues to contain a lot of Factual Errors.

I don't believe that screaming at a Vandal for Vandalism is a Bad Thing or Unjustified. Especially when they are masquerading as a Self-Important Wikipedia Editor and not actually doing the work of a True Editor.

So, are you on the side of making Wikipedia a more factually correct place? Or just on the side of Self-Important Vandals who don't know what they are doing and are just pretending to be Editors?

You should be telling Stepho to stop Vandalizing people's perfectly crafted edits.

DarthRad (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issues you raised (and agreed with the majority of them) at Talk:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Correction_of_Factual_Error_about_Acquisition_of_Titanium.

I also explained there how WP:BRD works and that it is not a wholesale rejection of your contribution.

Your comments are welcome on that talk page.  Stepho  talk  02:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthRad: What's missing in that giant packet of sentences you posted is addressing civility. That's what led to the ANI discussion (that you didn't participate in) and block. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming, mind, that your edits are all "perfectly crafted." One element of this dispute starts with the likelihood that you're not the world's preeminent expert in these subjects, and given such, you are not immune to being wrong. The way we handle differences of opinion on Wikipedia (since none of us are a consecrated elite, no matter our self-proclaimed credentials) is through consensus, and the nature of a consensus-driven environment is that sometimes we're on the losing side of it. If you persist in believing that the definition of vandalism is opposing your POV, that's going to be a problem going forward. Ravenswing 22:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zac67. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zac67 (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs)

November 2024

You have been blocked for one week from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.

Ranting and raving and false accusations of vandalism are unacceptable behaviors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]