User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archives/2015/June

A beer for you!

For your amazing efforts. I think we should request that the two opposing editors create a space where they can agree on their common ground, at least that would be a start. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Capital idea. Let's do it, and set some very definite guidelines against WP:PA, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. We ought to make it very clear that any incivility greatly degrades the quality of their arguments. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri-documents

Thanks for your efforts thus far on No Gun Ri Massacre. At this point, because I sense some confusion, and a natural lack of background on the subject, I'm urging all who are taking a hand in this to, please, review the documents at the Wikimedia page Category:No Gun Ri Massacre, here [[1]]. It can be a quick run-through. I've just discovered there's no link at the WP page to this compilation. I can't remember how it was configured previously, whether someone deleted it etc. But this is really a must, since these are key documents referred to in the secondary sources. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link -- I'll take a look. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you're a Rick Atkinson fan. Here's what he had to say about our Bridge at No Gun Ri (a blurb, not a review, but sincere nonetheless):

"A sober and absorbing account of a very dark chapter in American military history...Meticulously researched, scrupulously fair, and exceptionally well-written...Fine reading and fine history." Cheap, too. I'll be happy to mail you a copy. Seriously, it's the best way to grasp the whole picture, although someone just told me the massacre, the middle chapter, so traumatized him he couldn't read on.

Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer, but I can get it at the library right now. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedantry

I apologize if I am being pedantic. I would be more apt to accept multiple edits at a time from a third party editor, but I think that exactly vetting every edit from the two involved parties is vital. It's grueling no doubt, but I do think it's the only way to do things right. It's also the only way to keep one or another from saying "See, they're just on the other guy's side. They let him stick in a whole section." It's also the only way that editors like Hanley are going to learn specific rules, when the violate them, and why they're important. I don't see it as drama; I see it as negotiation. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kursk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kursk you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Better late than never!

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Operation Barbarossa (estimated annual readership: 900,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jonas! It's been a pleasure working with you. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats. Keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kursk

Sorry about me being so "slacky" these past few days, been so busy with boring real life stuff. Will make a sharp cut in the review tomorrow, that much I can promise. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Totally fine. Real life does get in the way sometimes! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)