User talk:MarchOrDie

MarchOrDie, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi MarchOrDie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MarchOrDie. 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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! Mediran ^{talk to me!} 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very kind of you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Little Moreton Hall

Thanks for all your help with Little Moreton Hall, which I've now nominated for GA. I'd really like one day to get it to FA, but I know that's a big step up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome, it's been a pleasure and has taught me a lot about the subject. Thanks to you too for all the work you've done on it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fritz Joubert Duquesne

Please clarify your changes to the article. You can clarify here or in the talk section of the article itself. The changes you have made seem to be conjecture to me and it would help if you would add some cites to the support your supposition. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, my edit was pretty much a simple copyedit. What was it you didn't agree with? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. For some reason I thought it was more substantive, but your changes were indeed a copyedit. Thanks for the clarification. Ctatkinson (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"however"

It's difficult to get people to reduce usage down to what Garner's and Chicago recommend; the WP:MOS page uses "however" 17 times, not counting the subsection on "however". If it's important to you, and if you plan to do more reviewing at FAC, I'll try a bit harder to make the case ... but, I've been making the case for years on Wikipedia and years before that, and ... it's not an easy battle to win. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a long battle for clarity and neutrality. It's more allowable in a MoS page or a discussion than it is on a mainspace aticle, in my opinion. The style guideline correctly reflects real-world good practice. Using "however" is one step up from using "fortunately" in an article. Have you seen the great (but so far unresolved) conversation I've been having about ambiguity here and here? --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If a sentence can only reasonably mean one thing, then IMO it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "ambiguous", though it might be bad style. If I understand right that you're interested in military history, you're more than welcome to copyedit our articles at A-class and FAC, and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that ambiguity is bad style. I appreciate the invitation to copyedit. I'll see how I go. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello, I've just removed a grouchy and unfair comment about your review of the F-4 article which I'd never meant to post. I apologise especially for the last bit, as it isn't the slightest bit true (and note that I always try to be totally fair in the reviews I post). The rest of the comments were a much ruder version of the feedback I was planning to provide to you at the conclusion of the review (in short, please don't post 'oppose' votes which aren't simultaneously accompanied by actionable concerns or which relate to material which can be easily fixed by the nominator). I very much appreciate your comments, and think that they've resulted in a stronger article, but the way you've presented them is quite frustrating due to your decision to post an 'oppose' vote for what are minor issues. Again, I'm very sorry for accidentally posting my stress-relieving vent, and apologise for the offense I've caused. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Saw this after I posted above. Two and three years ago, it was quite common to see opposes in Milhist FACs, sometimes over minor issues. Delegates often promoted when there were opposes, too. It may be you're just following your previous FAC experience, MarchOrDie ... just be aware it's not always going to play well these days, but of course, feel free to march to your own drummer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries Nick. Peer review is stressful and I've seen a lot worse, believe me. I understand we are all just here to improve the article and that tempers can get raised when people disagree about something they are passionate about. Really, really, no hard feelings at all from my side. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. At very least I owe you a pre-FAC nomination copy edit/informal review; please drop me a note on my talk page at any stage if you'd like to take that up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. I'm also sorry if I caused you any stress by the way I reviewed the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

.338 Lapua Magnum

You removed information regarding restrictions of civil use of the .338 Lapua Magnum chambering that was and is backed by Wikipedia articles which were internally referenced to.

From Gun politics in Mexico - Type of firearms permitted: High-powered rifles, of repeating or semi-automatic function, non-convertible to full-auto, with the exception of .30 caliber carbines, rifles, moskets and carbines caliber .223, 7 and 7.62mm, and Garand rifles caliber .30.

From Gun politics in Italy - Limitations: Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum, and as a matter of fact all military ammunition (such as 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, .50-BMG and up) are not available to the public. On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian denominations (such as .223 Remington, .308 Winchester). Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.

I did not write these gun politics articles and what you or I think regarding such gun politics and their limitations is irrelevant for the lawmakers in these jurisdictions.

I assumed you removed the internally referenced information in good faith.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I removed it under the provisions of WP:V which requires that anything liable to be challenged needs to be cited to reliable external sources. A Wikipedia article would not qualify. My preference is to leave the information there but with a {{cn}} tag, to see if someone can find a proper source we can cite. If this cannot be done, we need to remove it as unverifiable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this (http://www.earmi.it/diritto/faq/Sintesi%202012-A4.pdf) suffice as an external reference for Italy?--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No, ideally it would be an English language source and one with some sort of established reputation for fact-checking. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now raised this in article talk and perhaps we can continue this conversation there. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Non English law

Laws are generally written in the official language(s) of the jurisdiction. It is not reasonable to expect that laws are translated into English when English is not an official language of that jurisdiction. Gun and hunting laws in jurisdictions that pose severe limitations (Europe is full of them) are also of no interest to many local citizens, since they are not allowed to own and use guns anyhow. So traveling with guns and ammunition to other jurisdictions in real life means one has to pay attention in general and doing homework to avoid problems.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. Does the English-language Wikipedia really need to carry information that is only available on a foreign-language primary resource? Truly notable things tend to get translated and recorded in proper secondary English-language sources. And your weak sources only relate to Italy, not Mexico or any other country. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

7part/whales/seealsos

Hey, would you please be sure to engage with 7part before modifying any more of his edits en-masse? thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

March, come on. Please be patient. 7part seems willing to discuss; please try to deescalate here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This constitutes the engagement. I can't believe you just accused me of "edit-warring" for modifying the mass additions this editor made which you acknowledged were inappropriate. Please reconsider your involvement here and try to refocus it in a more competent and considered way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of edit warring? "constitutes the engagement"—yes, it was! I'm just asking you (I already asked 7part) to not edit any more in this narrow area until consensus can be determined, a-la WP:BRD/etc. Any further edits along these lines from either of you probably would be considered edit warring, and I doubt it would be tolerated. Please reconsider your involvement here and try to refocus it in a more competent and considered way.—pardon me, I can't parse this and I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then? I went ahead and raised it in project talk like perhaps you should have done. I am sorry you have no idea what I am talking about. Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here, particularly your edit here, and compare it with what I was doing, you may gain insight into why your involvement here (so far) does not look particularly clueful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then?—It means exactly what it says: I am hoping you two and others can come to some agreement before mass-editing articles again. Why are you so combative here? I made a big deal about it on 7part's talk page, and I was thinking it would be pretty frustrating for 7part if you continued any of these edits without discussion after I had said that and 7part had started trying to engage in a more constructive way—because of that I wanted to drop you a note here. Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here—I haven't forgotten my edit, but I still don't understand your point. If you have one that you are interested in getting across, please lay it out clearly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I know you were only trying to help. You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself, and by not using prejudicial words like "edit-war". Taking it to a central venue is another obvious thing you can do to resolve a dispute. Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself—I'm not trying to mediate anything, MarchOrDie. My only goal here was to try to get 7part to not make these edits again without getting everyone on board. In any case, though, I disagree—often the disputants are the ideal mediators; if things can be worked out among the editors involved that is usually best, I think. Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad—Oh dear; what did I do? I chided 7part for making dozens of edits that he knew were controversial and I chided you for your belligerence and this, which is not an acceptable approach to editing here. What are you referring to? If I behaved poorly in all this I apologize and would certainly appreciate an explicit pointer; I'm having trouble reading between the lines here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're apparently having trouble reading full stop. It's apparent to me at this point that it's more important to you to win the argument than it is to improve the articles, or to exercise intelligence and discretion as an administrator is supposed to. That's disappointing, but I don't want to seem, er, belligerent, so I'll leave you to get on with whatever it is you were doing. I think the content issue is safely taken care of, and thank you for your effort in trying to get involved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, ok—you're welcome, I guess? Were we even having an argument? Well if I am doing something wrong or do in the future please don't hesitate to drop me a note/email/etc. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For contributing 1,095 diverse Wikispace edits faster than any new user I have ever seen (just 44 days)! Quite an impressive accomplishment, well done! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Keep up the great work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Put to work" versus "put to labour"

Doesn't one normally talk about prisoners being "put to labour" rather than "put to work"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Put to labor" is fairly common in American English, but it has a legalistic flavour there. "Put to labour" is unknown in British English and sounds downright funny to a British ear. "Put to work" seems to mean the same thing for fewer syllables and gives more universal comprehensibility for our mixed audience. I'd be open to alternatives like "forced to work". One other reason I dislike "put to labor" is that it is principally used in a legal context and what was done to Jews and other victims of the Holocaust was the epitome of illegality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm Canadian, and spell like one when I'm not editing American articles. "Put to labour" would definitely be the Canadian way to say it, and "put to work" definitely sounds strange to my ears. I'll change it to "forced to work". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Forced to work" is definitely better. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection

Hello, I overhauled Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection by removing much of the trivia (for which I could not find reliable sources) and adding a "Shared themes" section. I think the article is in much better shape. While it is more sparse, I think there is a stronger case for having a stand-alone article as long as the standard is maintained. Please let me know at the AfD discussion what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it does look better now, but I regretfully still think it should be deleted. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for reviewing. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Bath School disaster

I actually don't disagree with your removal of that somewhat purple prose but I wish you would have just deleted the unsourced content if you wished and then perhaps stated an edit summary along the lines of 'deleted redundant/unneeded text' but not included that particular opinion. Shearonink (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I tell it like it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, keeping edit summaries as dispassionate as possible isn't against some Wikipedia guideline. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, but only as dispassionate as possible. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Little Moreton Hall

Just to let you know that I've picked this for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2013. Hope this is OK. If you want to tweak the blurb before it appears on the main page, please do. Congratulations on a lovely article! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you doing great copy-editing on TFAs. Could you go over Messiah (Handel) (and related articles Messiah structure, I II III) before it goes to the Main page, please? - (translator of - part of LMH to German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I will be happy to have a look. I should be able to do this later today. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, 23 March is the day, please be easy on the Main article, two great authors to respect. I was the only one for the others, and English is not my first language. - Belated (I missed you as co-author, don't miss the stats):

SG for Little Moreton Hall

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

another constellation.....

I am buffing Canis Minor and have it listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 - all input helpful as I'm feeling a little blocked on this one.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick pass. It's another nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

much appreciated - I can't believe there is less of interest than in Leo Minor....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Checking facts with sources

I saw your work on 2013 meat adulteration scandal. I think the article 2013 Russian meteor event need some sanity check when it comes to what the article says and the sources backs. I found "1000 ton" when three sources immediately specified "10 ton" despite the correct answer (from NASA) was 1000 ton. So I suspect there's other mismatches between facts and sources in the article. Electron9 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

NASA are saying 10 000 ton. The 10 ton figure is more widely reported but is incorrect. -- 79.70.229.101 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct 10 000 ton ;-) .. still the article needs some serious sanity check. Electron9 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A butter tart

Have a pecan butter tart on me, for sticking with me when I was being less than gracious with your feedback.

Bon appetit!

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I enjoyed working with you and I think the end result was a good one. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious

Little Moreton Hall
Thank you for reading a lot and then improving even the best of articles ("remove "in fact"; this is an encyclopedia and it should be safe to assume that everything here is factual"), such as Little Moreton Hall, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very much appreciated. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 428 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1

Following my response on the above page, can you please reconsider your oppose? --Rschen7754 16:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sandringham House. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries, please. My edits are exempt from 3RR. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

George acDonald Fraser

Hello, MarchOrDie. You have new messages at Verne Equinox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

}

What happened here?

[1] Enigma^msg 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny. Beats me. You can see the edit I made, from "2nd" to "second". I have no idea what happened at the top of the page. A software glitch? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MarchOrDie. 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)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your insults, comments like "You lost. Get over it.", and inexplicable attempts to exclude editors from discussions have no place here. If you cannot be civil and must resort to personal attacks, then it's off to ANI we will go. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I think you need to recalibrate your prissiness settings. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite literally terrified. All this because you were wrong on a Manual of Style issue? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, your report was closed without action, and you're still wrong on the style issue. Live and learn, eh? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)

Thanks for your good edits to this page, MOD. All look good, and help make the language tighter. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It's a super article, but even very good articles can frequently be further improved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Image width

I'm giving up at Talk:Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat). Doesn't have to be so complicated... Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OWN is a perfectly understandable thing. But I admit it's frustrating to argue with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. On the other hand, isn't it great to take part in a project where people care so passionately about how an image size is coded that they will edit-war over it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Guys, Andy's edit seems to have resolved the issue, certainly to my satisfaction, the page now renders closer to what I had tried for. To reduce the stress level, and yes MarchOrDie, not edit war over stupid &68], I think we should leave it at that. Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I never like to "edit war over stupid", and this was the definition of that. Astonishing that people would edit-war over something they clearly don't understand. All fixed now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Toyah Wilcox

Is your recent edit made purely because you dislike the Daily Mail ("worthless tabloid") or do you believe that the quotes were incorrect ? RGCorris (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the question. Please see WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:DAILYMAIL. The former describes how we cannot use tabloid journalism on articles on living people, and the latter describes how the Daily Mail is deprecated on all articles here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Captured"

In re: "Captured does not imply legality"; so you'd be ok if we said that Nazis captured Jews?" I think this discussion is not going anywhere. Of course, those Jews who were in hiding were often captured. Others were deported to ghettos and / or death camps; some were shot outright. It seems a bit unseemly to keep bringing this up. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I think it's time for an RfC. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Hello, MarchOrDie. You have new messages at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides#RfC on drug name.
Message added 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding this, touch my post again, and it's you I will be taking to WP:ANI. You keep editing like a complete newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, if "editing like a complete newbie" means trying to improve articles rather than looking for trouble everywhere, I'll wear it as a badge of honor. Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn! --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your ANI thread on me was clearly looking for trouble. Hardly anyone responding to it should tell you that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No, my AN/I thread about your behavior was intended to stop you misrepresenting my support by changing the question after an RfC had commenced. It was successful, as Paul August was good enough to refactor the RfC. The problem that you caused is over now, and you may want to reflect upon how helpful or otherwise your interventions have been lately. There is no shame in going off for a cup of tea if you're getting too emotionally involved in a subject. Other than that I have no interest in discussing the matter further with you here. There are articles to improve; as someone recently suggested to you at AN/I, time to drop the stick and get on with something useful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to remove this post from your talk page, but it will still be in the edit history. Paul August and I do not have a good history together; so it is not a surprise that he would jump to refractor my post. No admin there at WP:ANI stated that what I did was a problem. No editor but your buddy stated that what I did was a problem. I rebutted your nonsense at WP:ANI. And the only stick the other editor is requesting I drop is going after the biased wording in the RfC, which is something I don't feel is a stick matter anyway. And now that the editor states something you like, after they've disagreed with your nonsense, you want to support a statement from that editor? Predictable. And given the way you recently talked to me at the Jackson talk page, you cannot claim that you were not "too emotionally involved." As for other things to do, I always have other things to do at this site. As our current edit histories show, you are consumed with the Jackson content while I move on to other matters throughout the day. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sticks?

Hi. What are stick matters? Congratulations on your continued improvements to the MJ BLP. Mcfnord (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! How do you mean stick matters? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"time to drop the stick and get on with something useful." I've seen the language elsewhere. Do you mean beefing? Strong disgreement? Mcfnord (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see! No, it's the stick one uses to beat a dead horse. See WP:STICK. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I get it now! Congrats on being consumed with a high-profile article! While MJ has passed on, perhaps we can be BLP buddies anyway. Mcfnord (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Nice to meet you, and I look forward to your input at Talk:Michael Jackson, a Featured Article on a fascinating subject which right now contains the wording Jackson stated he had had only two rhinoplasties and no other facial surgery, but mentioned having had a dimple created in his chin. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't studied the matter carefully, but do note that within the realm of politeness assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks can be found: "... you ridiculously refer to as..." "... your typical personal attack garbage." "stop wasting my time with nonsense." Just taking notes. Mcfnord (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well indeed. This is an interesting way of looking at these things. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here comes yellow! Mcfnord (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing newspaper logos from infobox

Hello, I have noticed your removal of newspaper logo from infoboxes, in South China Morning Post and The New York Times. I believe that this violates the consistency between articles of newspapers. This could involve large amount of articles, including newspaper of records The Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph. In fact, I could not understand your reason of "redundant" in your edit summary. A lot of photos in Wikipedia's article infobox consists of the logo of the company (see Microsoft). I hope you can revert the changes until a discussion and consensus is made. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. What do you think the redundant images achieve? I am more concerned with usefulness than consistency. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Logos are used in WP articles for encyclopedic purposes. For South China Morning Post, their logo includes a graphic logo (the two rectangles, not included inside the newspaper scan but inside their online resources) and their newspaper typography logo ("South China Morning Post"). I believe it would be useful to include their logo inside the article, and that it is not redundant. Also, consistency is important as well, so that it let all future editors to do the same thing and could prevent confusion. If we have to remove all logos from all newspaper articles, I believe a discussion for consensus is needed. –Wefk423 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Useful for what? This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for nonfree images. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

These are free logos that does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, hence in public domain. Logo are useful for identifying subjects. I don't entirely agree that we should treat it different from other companies' article. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not answering the main question, which is "what are they useful for?" Identifying subject won't do, as we have the page as well for that. We really don't need both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Your recent editing history at South China Morning Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Citobun (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)