User talk:Jim Sweeney: Difference between revisions
→RLI: new section |
→Review of Bloody Knife: new section |
||
| Line 462: | Line 462: | ||
{{tb|Talk:History of the Rhodesian Light Infantry (1972–1977)}} |
{{tb|Talk:History of the Rhodesian Light Infantry (1972–1977)}} |
||
== Review of Bloody Knife == |
|||
Hello Jim, thanks for starting the review. I just wanted to say that I'm going to finish any corrections on the article tomorrow or over weekend because I'm going to be busy for the rest of the day. [[User:Rockgenre|RG]] ([[User talk:Rockgenre|talk]]) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:18, 1 December 2011
| This is Jim Sweeney's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 17 days  |
Sandbox, Sandbox2. Division, Battalion, battles and operations
| WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
| |
|
|
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jim Sweeney! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Vietnam war massacres
If you disagree with my ref improve tags, please discuss on the talk pages rather than just unilaterally untagging them. The sources for all of these massacres are limited and generally Vietnamese POV, so tagging with ref improve is perfectly legitimate. Mztourist (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The tags are ref improve not POV, the articles are well referenced, it seems you have added the wrong tags. Can you change them.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- They are not well referenced, look at Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre, it has a single Vietnamese Government reference for the event, all the other refs relate to other purported massacres. This is inadequate and so inherently POV. Controversial claims need decent references and my tagging is in accordance with Refimprove criteria. Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying a reference to the Vietnamese government is unreliable? A quick search on Google books has found references for theses, which you could have done before tagging. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I am saying that. The Vietnamese Government continues a policy of Communo-bombastic propaganda of all aspects of the Vietnam War (e.g. if you visit Khe Sanh you will see a monument claiming that they killed 10,000 allied troops there). I see that you have added a reference "North Vietnam a Documentary" to Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre, but without bothering to cite the reference properly. As the book was written in 1968 by someone who apparently "went to North Vietnam as a member of the first investigating team for the International War Crimes Tribunal" do you really think this is a reliable NPOV ref? On the Binh Hoa Massacre page is your ref to support the fact that the South Koreans were US allies or that 1 survivor of the massacre joined the Vietcong? I don't see that your ref amounts to a ref improve Mztourist (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- You obviously have problems with Vietnam war articles and seem unwilling to accept that the Americans and Allies could do no wrong. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't read enough Vietnamese sources to see how biased and fantastic they are Mztourist (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying a reference to the Vietnamese government is unreliable? A quick search on Google books has found references for theses, which you could have done before tagging. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- They are not well referenced, look at Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre, it has a single Vietnamese Government reference for the event, all the other refs relate to other purported massacres. This is inadequate and so inherently POV. Controversial claims need decent references and my tagging is in accordance with Refimprove criteria. Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Some of the references are western authors or media.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- the Vietnamese Government POV is simply repeated by western writers or media, that doesn't make it NPOV hence why the articles were tagged Mztourist (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No. 11 (Scottish) Commando
I sought a cite as the Achnacarry page refers to Commando training from 1942 only. I understand the first training courses for No. 11 (Scottish) Commando were on Arran (once they had marched from Galashiels to the ferry).[1] Ned de Rotelande 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
FTC closure
Hey, if you get a chance, can you promote this nomination? I am too busy this week and haven't gotten the time to do much editing. GamerPro64 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I've completed my comments in the GA review of this article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've just passed the review - great work with this article, and the idea of creating articles on this kind of topic is excellent. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
4th Battalion, Mercian Regiment
Article: 4th Battalion, Mercian Regiment.
As you are aware there is a "Merge" tag on the above article. I've noticed your comment in support of a merge, while I do not understand what you mean in your comment. Guess I am a little confused as to what you are trying to point out. Adamdaley (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The comments give my reason for supporting the merging of the articles.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
rv
your edit has been reverted. here. just letting u know Pass a Method talk 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK if you happy for the article to remain a mess, that's fine. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks Jim Sweeney for helping to promote 6th Airborne Division advance to the River Seine to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 08:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jncraton (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
RLI
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Review of Bloody Knife
Hello Jim, thanks for starting the review. I just wanted to say that I'm going to finish any corrections on the article tomorrow or over weekend because I'm going to be busy for the rest of the day. RG (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)