User talk:Snagemit

Aggregation of Killed and Wounded figures on Military History Articles

Please stop aggregating killed and wounded figures in the infoboxs of military history articles, if a source breaks down the killed and wounded it should be quoted as such in the infobox. It appears several other editors have brought this issue to your attention and you have failed to respond in any manner.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malplaquet

Greetings! Why are you removing data from the battle? That's not the way contributing to an encyclopedia works. You currently have two sources not backing you up sitting right next to your "Grand Alliance victory". You don't find it to be a problem? Lynn and Bergin are not random bloggers writting nonsense on their websites. They both are distinguished and respected experts of their field. Even Wiston Churchill himself pointed that Malplaquet didn't turn out to be a "triumph". I was the one to link Joseph Bergin and to add his "French strategic victory". I mean I linked the book and the page, no? Why don't you read it before deleting stuff which doesn't sit well with your feelings?! You didn't provide a single reason for the removal beyond "Don't change this.... because I said so". That's not how it works. I restored it to "Grand Alliance tactical victory" as the Allies were left in possession of the battlefield. But the whole endeavor was a failure. Invading France was goal of the battle after the failed peace negociations, and Villars successfully prevent it. The french strategic victory or grand alliance pyrrhic victory are said by the authors for a reason. Stop removing stuff you don't like and even worse threatening people while doing so. What you're doing is pure intellectual dishonesty. (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, first of all, you might find a better response if you didn't accuse me of "pure intellectual dishonesty". The majority of sources, Lynn included, describe the battle as a victory (irregardless of whether it was pyrrhic, which it was) for the Grand Alliance. However, as per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. As per the template guidelines, I have modified the result parameter to be either "X victory" or "indecisive" or "see Aftermath". I'm not disputing that the battle might have resulted in a French strategic victory, but the result parameter as you put it is a violation of the contradictory statements as the template has stated. Also, you might want to read up on WP:Civil before commenting on talk pages. Snagemit (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that rule of yours seems to be selectively implemented then, no?! There are plenty of battles with "decisive", "strategic", "tactical" The Battle of Blenheim in the exact same war is marked a "decisive victory", no? You probably saw that article... why didn't you remove it from that page but did so today with Denain? (Jules Agathias (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to remove it from the article. IMO all such articles should remove the parameter, but certain ones (such as Appotomax Court House wouldn't suffer for it). Snagemit (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Snagemit!

I've noticed a few recent edits of yours like this one, where you took a link to a redirect page (in this case, the link [[Catholics]]) and changed it a pipe to the page that the redirect was to (i.e., putting in [[Catholic church|Cathollics]].)

I understand that that may seem more efficient and more direct, but it's actually preferred that you leave the redirect in place, for a number of reasons. You can find this discussed at WP:NOTBROKEN. So please, in the future, do not make that sort of change... and if you can undo some of the ones you've recently done, that would be a help. (I've already undone the Westboro Baptist Church one.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, although I assumed the link specified Catholics because a page for the adherents of the religion used to exist (much like there being an article for both Jews and Judaism). Thanks Snagemit (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics has been a redirect since its creation in 2002, although originally it was a redirect to Catholicism rather than Catholic church. But in any case, a link to a redirect is fine and proper. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, but since I wasn't alive in 2002 (:O), I merely made the assumption that it had existed (at some point in time). I also had no idea about WP:NOTBROKEN, so you have my gratitude for sharing that information. As they say in Germany, danke. Snagemit (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte. (And for another helpful note: Here's a page on indenting in Talk page discussions!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm honored that a esteemed comic book writer would take time out of his schedule to comment on my talk page. Look, Ma! I'm famous! :P Snagemit (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being esteemed as a comic book writer only gets one so far, alas. Enjoy your fame! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Silda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Atlantic

I have reverted the edits you made to Battle of the Atlantic. There is an explanation on the talk page of that article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit on Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Prefixing the date of this photograph with "circa" is wrong. Look at the source ([1]) - you will see that the photograph is precisely dated. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited California Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Snagemit, I've lost patience with your disruptive editing. I will summarily revert your retrograde edits, contradictions of WP, inaccurate layout changes in infoboxes which i have pointed out to you several times. Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: Notice of Administrator Noticeboard thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ed6767 talk! 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a permanent link to the thread now located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#Article Damage & Persistent Vandalism After 8 Warnings for those interested in reviewing this case. EtherealGate (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing (communication is required).
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason for the block, not do I understand your authority to do so. A suggested by the editing guide I made bold edits to the Albuera article to correct factual errors. I provided a comment for every change and cited authority for substance. Marshalb (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... did you just out yourself as having multiple accounts?--Jorm (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ouch! Ed6767 talk! 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marshalb Ed6767 talk! 14:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And with an account that goes all the way back to 2007 that was previously warned and blocked for sockpuppetting. Mz7 mentions the user using a VPN meaning he was fully aware of what he was doing and trying to avoid scrutiny. The Albuera article mentioned by Snagemit appears to be the Battle of Albuera, which is among the first articles edited by Snagmeit when he first created his account, and which the two sockpuppets edited within 2 hours apart, a very obscure article which the master has been editing since at least 2008. EtherealGate (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snagemit has come into conflict with so many people in such a short amount of he's been editing with this persona. What really boggles my mind is how he has managed to vandalize thousands upon thousands of articles in just 2 months, as if it's nothing. Just a few of the users he has had problems with include Keith-264, 021120x, Ed6767, NatGertler, Jorm, User:Belevalo, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, XavierGreen, Jules Agathias, Beyond My Ken, ThoughtIdRetired, Imonoz, RightCowLeftCoast, QuintusPetillius, Sturmvogel 66, and Urselius. And that was just a cursory view and not an extensive list. Just this user talk page alone and his talk archive is filled with arguments and warnings. It's like he just can't help himself. EtherealGate (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you are right....Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to that. I have reverted a lot of his edits which are odd and never explained. Glad to see this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Snagemit is editing as Ninevehorion same style. same mistakes etc Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep on eye, I'm having to painstakingly go through a lot of my articles to revert the edits he made. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any further suspect socks should immediately head to SPI. Ed6767 talk! 17:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tomaten05 is also worth keeping an eye on. Created suspiciously around the same time as Snagemit's block. Same characteristic jumping from one article to the next at lightning speed as mentioned by User:ThoughtIdRetired, racking up hundreds upon hundreds of edits in literally the span of a few days. EtherealGate (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Barbary battles of the 17th century

Hello, Snagemit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Barbary battles of the 17th century".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]