User talk:PRRfan
Belated best wishes for a happy 2018
== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Monuments Men?
I'm not sure I know what an unofficial proper name is, but tell me why you think it is one. The Monuments Men was the title of a book and movie, and the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program members were some sometimes referred to as Monuments men with Monuments capped as the short name for that program, but I don't see much in sources with Men capped, or at least not until they're copying the book or movie title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ha, fair point; perhaps I should have said simply "nickname," like the Bronx Bombers, Screaming Eagles, or Devil Dogs. Anyway, I found a few uses of capped MM pre-2009, and many since. I think you're right that there was less consensus on the capitalization of the nickname before Edsel's book (here's a book that uses Mm), but the tide seems definitely to have turned in favor of MM. (National Park Service, Architect of the Capitol, US Mint). Why not follow suit? 02:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:3RR
There is a firm policy that limits reversions on a single page to 3 times within a 24 hour period (WP:3RR). The policy contains no 'my version is better' exception. You have now reverted 4 times in under 4 hours. Four hours is appreciably less time than 24 hours. Agricolae (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You first reverted 3 and a half hours ago - how is three and a half hours not a reasonable amount of time to defend your choice on the Talk page? Agricolae (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the relevant practice here is, in fact, BRD: You made a Bold edit, I Reverted it, and now we Discuss. It's not "You make a Bold edit, I Revert it, you Decide that discussion is unnecessary." As for time, how is three and a half hours not a rather brisk, not to mention completely arbitrary, deadline for discussion? And what's your rush? Your concerns are noted; I will respond when I get a moment. PRRfan (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't read WP:3RR closely enough. Where it lists allowable reasons to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, WP:BRD is not one of them. And I'm the one in the rush? What's your hurry? Your revert (the first one, let alone the fourth) couldn't have waited until you actually had the time to defend it? (assuming you ever had any intention of doing so rather than just using BRD as a way of fobbing me off, as appears to be the case). And since we are talking about WP:BRD, it's funny what you find when you read the whole thing: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. . . . The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Didn't see that part, eh? Agricolae (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like technically a 3RR violation, but Agricolae, it's really your fault for repeatedly removing 9 KB and refusing to take it the talk page when challenged. Please do that, and a consensus may emerge. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, WP:3RR is a hard rule - if you revert more than 3 times, you have violated it. Full stop. It has no 'but the mean girls made me do it' exception that makes anyone else at fault other than the person who violated the rule. Likewise, you might want to refresh your memory with another look at the Talk page in question, and note in particular who has, and who has not, said something there. Agricolae (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- No points for doing the right thing after you've had to be reminded three times, Agricolae. Shall we all take a deep cleansing breath, assume good faith, and work to seek a consensus? PRRfan (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- As opposed to you not doing the right thing, even after four reverts? Yeah, that gives you the moral high ground. Why should I assume good faith when you choose to spend your supposedly-limited and valuable time pontificating here about how I should behave differently, yet claim you don't have time to discuss the actual content? Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- No points for doing the right thing after you've had to be reminded three times, Agricolae. Shall we all take a deep cleansing breath, assume good faith, and work to seek a consensus? PRRfan (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Question
On USS Princeton (CG-59), can you clarify what "the tactically "fake" U.S. Marine and Invasion forces afloat" means? ("tactically "fake" was later changed to "decoy"). If you could also provide a source, that would be helpful as well. Thanks - wolf 21:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, I have no idea. (It wasn't my edit.) I suppose the editor was trying to say that the purported invasion force was largely a deception and a diversion from the real lines of effort. PRRfan (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI
You can list all your talk page archives in a single search box, instead of four different boxes, using this markup;
Cheers - wolf 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, PRRfan. 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)
Your recent edits to the Satterlee General Hospital article
Hi, PRRfan. Just wanted to give you a heads up that your most recent edits (moving content around to create a better chronological error) just created a significant error in the accuracy of the Satterlee General Hospital article. Rather than reverting your changes entirely (because I believe several have merit), I'm writing to ask that you fix the error. The Catholic Historical Research Center page that I had added as a citation notes that, "Satterlee Hospital became a self-contained city when a tent city was built on the grounds in 1863" - and not 1864 as you wrote in your recent changes. Also, while I sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm for Satterlee General Hospital (and note that you have made one edit to the article in 2007, one in 2008, and one in 2013 and two in 2010), I ask that you refrain from making such sweeping changes moving forward. I have been working hard over the last several weeks to research Satterlee in order to further upgrade this article because this article is important not just to the two of us (because we both enjoy reading and writing about Pennsylvania's history), but to students in Pennsylvania's schools who are currently studying Pennsylvania's role the Civil War. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, 47th! Sorry about introducing that error. Because the list of things in the "self-contained city" was drawn from the text on the 1864 lithograph, I assumed — whoops — that the "self-contained city" line was also in reference to 1864. I'll fix that straightaway. PRRfan (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for fixing that error, PRRfan. Just as a bit of clarification to your message above, "the list of things in the 'self-contained city'" that I added was actually not "drawn from the text on the 1864 lithograph." That list came from other sources that I've added to the article, including the Catholic Historical Research Center resource. Also, just as another heads up, by moving things around as you've been doing, you have inadvertently been injecting formatting errors into this article because you've been moving items in such a way that paragraphs that had citations no longer do. In addition to undoing my work to ensure that each paragraph has at least one citation, your edits are putting this article at risk for future tagging of these paragraphs by other Wikipedians as "unreferenced" or the tagging of the entire article as "needing more citations," which can make the article appear to be an untrustworthy source to teachers, students and others wanting to cite this article in their research publications. So, again, I ask that you refrain from making such sweeping changes moving forward (and would appreciate it if you could be more careful with the edits you do make because, as I stated above, I've been researching and editing this article with the intent of improving its usability as a reference for Pennsylvania K-12 and higher ed students). Thanks for your cooperation. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auberge de Castille, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auberge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOR
Maybe I missed it. When did the prohibition against Original Research cease to be a policy? Agricolae 01:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Answered at Talk:Enoch White Clark#Improvement tags. PRRfan (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Hello PRRfan, happy 2020s! Would you be willing to re-copyedit this edit from a decade ago—it relies mostly on a IEEE Spectrum citation possibly talking about developments originally undertaken in Poland (mentioned several times in the added text). —Sladen (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, @Sladen:, and happy new year to you as well! I'd be happy to revisit the piece, but I'm not quite sure what you want me to do here. Can you please clarify? PRRfan (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyedits
Hi, thanks for making copyedits to Grand Central Terminal art; your wording is almost always less awkward than mine! I do want to ask, I saw you've found some sources and added some to it, that's great! Are there any changes you've made to the facts stated? I did notice you changed 1940s to 1920s, which most sources don't seem to clarify. Yours does well and is pretty convincing. I got my date from here, which isn't as precise, but doesn't seem to state it's that old of a problem. I wish an older source could be found.
Another thing is that you're overdoing the inline citations, for instance the third paragraph of the "Ceiling' section has four sentences in a row citing [33]. In cases of two or more adjacent sentences from the same source, please just cite the end of the text cited there! It really makes for a cleaner look, see WP:CITEDENSE. Thanks again for your help so far. ɱ (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Ɱ, and thanks! And thanks for all your good work on this article and of course the GCT article itself. Basically, what I was trying to do with this particular edit was start the section with a quick description of the current ceiling, and then explain a bit more clearly how it got that way. I don't think I changed/added any facts except to note that the water damage began in the 1920s, which I got from the untappedcities article. And oops, you're totally right about the inline citations. I like to keep each fact cited as I move stuff around, and then strip out the needless cites at the end, but failed to do so here. So I've fixed that now, I think. Thanks! PRRfan (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill of Rights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear PRRfan,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.
Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Reaching out because I saw that you've done some work on Lattice Semiconductor in the past. I've posted a few COI edit requests at Talk:Lattice Semiconductor. If you have some time and are up for taking a look, I'd appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi PRRfan,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.
Whitehall
I think your latest formulation is much better. In practice, there were very few places that could be characterized as plantations that didn't have some form of enslaved workforce, so we don't need to overdo it, nor should we ignore it. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with your approach. Just to unpack this a bit, I think that an article about a "plantation" should have an early and explicit statement that what's being described is a farm whose owners enslaved people and profiting from their forced labor. PRRfan (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Tell us about your experiences editing Wikipedia!
Hi PRRfan!
I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.
This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.
Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.
Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.
If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.
via Email: tbipat@uw.edu or English Wikipedia: tbipat
Tbipat (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Tbipat:: I'm flattered that you're interested. I had entirely forgotten that conversation (from 2007) but upon reviewing it, I'm struck by its cordiality, which is sadly less common than it ought to be. Still, I can't recall anything about those conversations that's not in the page's archives, so I must decline to participate further. Best of luck in your project. PRRfan (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)