Jump to content

User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

ANI

Well it sure as heck don't edit 15 sections above the one you're trying to comment on. TimothyJosephWood 20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

no, but if someone edits from their own last edit, instead of the existing one, and doesn't pay attention to what has transpired since... Not good practice, but the fellow looks entirely capable of doing just that. Either way, though, I think it would be better if edit conflict handled only those sections effected. Anmccaff (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Title of 2016 Anti-Muslim shooting in Minneapolis

Hi, there is a discussion under way on the talk page of 2016 Anti-Muslim shooting in Minneapolis; you expressed an opinion about the need for a better title when the article was at AfD, and I thought you might want to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

...but this has been a theme of the day apparently. TimothyJosephWood 23:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No prob. I figured if it was real, it'd get restored, end of it, and if it wasn't real, it'd get restored with a new set of checkuser clues. Anmccaff (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

reply

My apologies, @Timothyjosephwood:, I seem to have uppercased part of the reply to above. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Psychohistory

Psychohistory is the psychological studies using within limits traditional psychological methods generally of leaders while cliodynamics is mathematical modeling of long-term social processes by the use of the construction and analysis of historical databases. It models historical processes using differential equations, simulations, statistical analysis, historical macrosociology and economic history/cliometrics. They are totally different. BernardZ (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@BernardZ:, I studied history (as an academic minor) under one of the founders of the GUPH; I'm well aware of what it is and ain't. What it strongly shares with cliometrics is that it is an interdisciplinary approach to history, and in that sense cliometrics is its successor as the dominant interdisciplinary school.
I'd strongly disagree that there is no crossover; deMause was attempting to create a school of macrosociology, albeit with no success, thank God. Anmccaff (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

PS:This belongs, next time, on the article's talk page, not mine.

Religious views of Adolph Hitler

Per Editing others' comments (Section headings), it is entirely appropriate to edit talk page headings. I suggest you pick a title that is not a personal attack or otherwise inconsistent with creating a collegial atmosphere. Certainly you can inform other editors about the other discussion without demeaning other editors. TFD (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Can be rather than is, I'd say, @The Four Deuces:, but that isn't the main point, IMO. The section was a single sentence, strung into fragments; changing the beginning of it rendered the rest a little bit nonsensical. As I said, if you feel this inappropriate, either nuke it and replace, or show where you've changed, but don't leave your work under my signature. Do what you see fit, but don't leave it so the reader has trouble reading it, and I look like a drooler.
Me, I find very little wrecks my feelings of collegiality than deliberate POV pushing; there's quite enough agenda-driven BS on Wiki already. (Hey, that makes a good acronym -ADBOW. Hosies!) Someone consciously begging the question, and on an NPOV notice board no less, is demeaning themselves without any help from me. Anmccaff (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines. Go ahead and put your sentence in the body of the discussion thread, but headers are not supposed to mention other editors or be controversial and can be changed by anyone. If you think someone is POV-pushing, say so directly and without sarcasm. TFD (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Read 'em long since, @The Four Deuces:. If you feel it that far afoul of them, nuke it, then. Anmccaff (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert in Jeanne Calment article

How are you telling that is a comment herself did? There is nothing saying that she made the comment. Although I checked on other websites so I can now say that apparently it is not a comment by the wiki editor. But it still can be a comment by someone else besides her. I tried checking on the referenced source but the ebook is not available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Parenthetical sections, in quotes like that, are meant to convey that the subject said them. Whether that was entirely accurate, I'm not sure, but that is a very, very common convention in English writing. Anmccaff (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide a link with information of that convention? I was not aware of that use. I don't know where it is very, very common because I don't remember stumbling on it before. Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I have doubts whether this could be a productive conversation anywhere, but I am certain it can not be here. Why not copy it over to the article, or some other appropriate place where more than one set of eyes will see it? Anmccaff (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Subject Issue

Hi Anmccaff, thanks for your contributions. I'm trying to improve the category of Eyewear, can you suggest a better way to go about this or to organize people with similar interests? Is there a way to start a wikiproject? Know you had flagged me here, what is it that I need to do to fix and what do you think is the best way to work on this and other articles in this category? RogerMac (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Nazism#Strasserism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, you can either explain how your repeated closure of what was obviously an ongoing discussion somehow isn't edit-warring, or you or I can open this on AN3. I'm guessing I'll see you there, but who knows? Anmccaff (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The standing consensus on the talk page is that the question has been asked and answered sufficiently, and is in no need of additional discussion. It is that standing consensus that I am enforcing. If you want to expose your own disruptive editing to admin examination, that's your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

List of memorials to Jefferson Davis

While I realize Gilmore refuses to listen and is an edit warrior you yourself are at 3RR on this article. Given the path he is on I can see him soon being indeffed, in just the three articles I have been unfortunate enough to encounter him he has done nothing but edit war and ignore every policy presented to him. Happy editing Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, @Darkness Shines:, I think the policy concerns -BRD, his ignoring of consensus, &cet, would be enough protection against a simple 3RR block. If you think it's questionable, though, I'll lay off until someone else comes into the discussion there. I'd like your opinion on something else, though. His edits on Ridgefield, WA all track back to an SPA posting, and an IP's revert of it. Not only does the SPA's style look familiar, but it seems that it tracks back to a discussion elsewhere. Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
BRD is an essay not a policy, there are very few exemptions to 3RR, you would be better served going to WP:ANEW I looked at the article history, he is obviously editwarring again, and over an extended period. Report to ANEW with diffs from the first edit war till the most recent revert. If you suspect socking, you need to go to WP:SPI, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly I suspect socking, but I'm curious if it looks that way, too, to others. The whole dynamic of sockpuppetry tends to cause false sightings. Whaddaya think here, personally, @Darkness Shines:? Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
When that content was added Gilmore was busy being a SPA and editwarring on the Patriot Prayer article, and looking at the time between edits I doubt socking. He most likely got to that article from the confederate memorial list article, the IP, no idea, prob's a local who doesn't want there hometown linked to the memorial Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, those two subjects tie in closely with RCI, which seems to interest Gilmore. Obviously, the persona lacks the competence to slip a complete edit through between editting other subjects, but that could be for show, also. Newwikiaccount666 could be a meatpuppet, too, of course. Thanks for a look; if others concur, I might not open an SPI. Anmccaff (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Then an apology would be in order. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, now. If you get a clean bill of health at SPI, then perhaps. You could advance this by requesting a checkuser on yourself, the SPA, and the IP. Anmccaff (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one making false allegations and I'm not going to be ordered to do anything by you. Thanks, but I decline. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
When you adopt an SPA's words as your own, and defend them with...well, your writing style, let's leave it at that, you should expect that people will see you as the SPA, or the SPA as a meat puppet. So far, the only objections raised regard your competence at pulling it off while editing other pages. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not suppose to be personal, you should step away for a while from those pages and from me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that isn't going to be happening, given the upcoming AfD. Anmccaff (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Topics under RFC consideration should remane

Please, just wait a bit before making your changes as they are still under discussion and subject of RFC consideration. Please wait for more input before making such a major change, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

:-)

Hello A. I guess that, like most of us, you would like to see less red and blue pings. But, when I see something delightful like this edit summary I wish I could send a smiley ping. OTOH it did give me a reason to stop by your talkpage and say thanks for the grin. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, as victim habitue of alt.folklore.urban, I have the local attitude there about smileys, but I accept this in its intended spirit, and say that you are entirely welcome to the grin and any other grins in the vicinity.
Nahh, as pings go, this one is fine; the usual, though, seems to be "...have reverted your edit..." or "you are editing against my tag-team and I consensus... Anmccaff (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep - from the original OBOD to the little red dot they have been a harbinger of "this session is off to a crummy start" :-/ On the flip side it is a pleasant surprise when they are bout something nice. Enjoyed the link but shouldn't it have read smileysssssssssss. HeeHee. Thanks so much and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this would be the link for smileysssssss, give or take an "ess". (Btw, heard the one about the snail and the sportscar?) Anmccaff (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm so old I have a few variations of it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Concrete artillery?

Curious, is that referring to fixed fortifications etc? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayup. I did a small amount of the latest massive improvement of the stuff on US fixed fortifications. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If that's an interest of yours, the guy about three, four messages up has practically rewritten all the US stuff from about 1820 forward; worth a look. Anmccaff (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Brackets snafu

Hello A. Your post at ANI has one item that used two different kinds of brackets - thus the link isn't working :-( I make this mistake all the time so I thought you would like to know about it so you can fix it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MarnetteD. I went straight over, and as I was fixing it, someone else beat me to it. Hopefully now that a couple more people have seen the full horror, the next AfD will be successful. Anmccaff (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad it was fixed. I thought about doing that but I am always leery about editing another persons post at ANI and AN. Thanks for your vigilance in dealing with that article and reporting the problems. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious

analogies

Thank you for quality articles such as John Powers (academic), for updating articles about forts, among others, for dealing with articles for deletion and fighting vandalism, for the Besserwisser-analogy, for good questions, quotes and captivating image captions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A welcome change from the usual "There is a discussion concerning you at...".
Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Carlo

See - Carlo (submachine gun).Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good-looking little stub, User:Icewhiz, but it really should be part of Improvised firearms, no? Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: along with several others, come to think of it.Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well - it does exist in hewiki and dewiki (which is quite selective). And it is also referenced quite a bit by name. The "carlo"s do have common characteristics - the mechanism itself is similar between different workshops. It's a grade up from an Improvised firearm (which seems to cover truly homemade contraptions) - this is serial production, all be it very small scale, in organized workshops. It's more similar to the Sten (at least some of the less organized production runs - in the Yishuv and elsewhere).Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That looks like equivocation: the term seems to be used, at least in sources that use a Latin alphabet, both as a term for a wide range of firearms, and for a rough attempt at an actual K. Some of that is the usual reporter's need to select names for things based more on...hell, God alone knows what inspires them, sometimes, maybe aesthetics, maybe drink...but some of that seems to be actual colloquial usage. All the examples that came up in connection with the Murder of... article were completely ad-hoc, rather than semi-standardized. I'm sure whoever wrote the Paltik and Galkatas articles saw them also as sui generis; but except in trivial senses none are. Anmccaff (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well there are a few thousand to tens of thousands of these produced, and the term is widely used. In a sense you could extend your arguement to any standardized firearm - most of them boil down to a few basic types with differences in frills and decorations. The carlos are becoming more standardized in the past 2 years or so. I would not have written up this small stub (though it could be much longer) without our interaction earlier. In terms of incidents, these have been used in over half of the firearm incidents in the West Bank in the past few yeara and there are major crackdown efforts on metalworking shops.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The fact that we could extend an argument to the point of stupidity is nice rhetorical flourish, but not much practical use. I think you could exactly substitute, with minor tweaks for numbers and places, this with the similar pieces for the Philippines and for Ceylon. What good does it do an encyclopedia to have parallel nearly identical articles whose differences are entirely parochial? Anmccaff (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The 3 types are quite different. The Filipino gun is a late 19th century design. All 3 are playsible lookup terms and should at the very least be redirects. We have articles on several non factory produced regional weapon types (this is particularly true for pre industrial types), I do not see how these are different from a regional sword, poleaxe, and early firearms. The question is whether each one meets GNG by itself.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
e.g. you could make an arguement for merging Tanegashima (Japanese matchlock) with Matchlock on the same grounds. I think this is really a question of how distinct these are. If one of your noms is a dictdef for improvised firearm (with no separation really), then a redirect+merge would make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


(edit conflict)Nahh, the Philippines contains a continuum that goes right up to makers who went "legit"; article doesn't so much, but that's a different problem. You can find an el cheapo blowback anyplace that had machine shops...or highschool shop classes. Yes, the articles should be preserved as redirects or otherwise kept searchable, certainly.
(edit conflict)How do they vary from earlier weapons? Better communications, mostly, which means that ideas travel much, much faster. Cuts back on the need for local trial and error somewhat, and had people working from the same prototype over a much wider area. Cold war politics -two design philosophes bounced against each other, world wide. I.e., the same thing that makes current cars so much more uniform than 17th century coaches. Anmccaff (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


I think your example makes my case better. Japanese arms evolved in isolation, which explains many of their peculiarities. Anmccaff (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Japanese matchlock was a knockoff of the Portuguese, it just stuck around longer and had an influence on local Japanese history and culture. I do see where you are coming from with Paltik - looks like this is a 100+ year industry woth various designs. The article itself is out of date. It could perhaps be a sub-section. Not sure my mind is made up on this one - it may be notable as a local industry and export item. Not sure.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Japanese started out as a knockoff of a Portuguese colonial design, and evolved further internally. In 50 years, it had diverged considerably from something you'd find in Lisbon. It has a separate history, legitimately. On the other hand, yer central Portagoose design was rubbing shoulders with French, Spanish, English, Italian, German...
To make an even more vexed comparison. look at heraldry; we don't need a major reintroduction to sub-articles on Western European Heraldry...because they are largely the same. Pass into West Slavic lands, and all bets are off.
Anyway, I suspect we've beaten this to death here. Be seeing you. Anmccaff (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nazism

A favor, if you could: please look through the talk page, and point out to me anywhere you think I proposed changing the article's thrust?
@Ad Orientem:, the problem is that I did no such thing, I merely pointed out that the article could use another few sentences locking down the timeline of Strasserism's..."demise" isn't quite the right word, but it'll have to do... as a political force in nazism; the article already mentions it in the lead. That is to say, all the fuss you see on the talk page is in contradiction to the lead of the article. It already rightly covers the leftist underpinnings such as they are; it already equates nazism with the political left to the limited extent that good scholarship suggests it should. The OP's question, which was a legitimate one, I think, was about when that influence faded out, as it rather obviously did. (I'd suggest It was seriously weakened in 1930 with the central party administration's takeover of all publications, which drove out one Strasser, and convinced Goebbels that he's better jump ship, and nearly finished off with the Night of the Long Knives, &cet, but that's really for elsewhere.)
With thanks, Anmccaff (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: I realize, in retrospect, that's putting you on the spot a bit, and your asking some third party for input (which could be emailed, rather than placed here) would work quite well, too. Again, thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a note at WT:HIST asking for extra eyes. That is as far as I can go given that I am acting as an uninvolved admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't ask for more than that. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

5-inch Army guns

After doing a bunch of fort articles recently, and working on identifying the Commons cat "Unidentified artillery", I'm thinking of articles on the only remaining CAC guns I haven't done: the 5-inch guns M1897 and M1900 and the 16-inch howitzer M1920. I found a Commons photo of the "balanced pillar" mount that I added to Disappearing gun. Other than that it looks like they shredded the manuals on the 5-inch guns when they were removed from service circa 1920. I've found some material on their abortive incarnation as field artillery, but that's it. The new book by Glen Williford is strictly about towed artillery, and does have the 5-inch and 6-inch guns, but only their towed version. So if/when I do these the infobox is going to be sparse. On the bright side I'll have room to list all of their 26-odd batteries if I feel like it. Not something I normally do, mind you. The list in 12-inch gun M1895 was there when I got there. There is also a Commons cat for the 16-inch howitzer with several really good photos. RobDuch (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The West Point ordnance textbooks have a decent drawing of them. I think the 1917 version is the most accessible, thanks to the war and the preparedness movement, there were more copies in more places. I think Hathitrust has them, along with a bunch of reports of the chief engineer and chief of ordnance. More when I'm near a computer, not a smartphone. Anmccaff (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hathitrust does. (so does Internet Archive.) Line drawing of the 5" BP. Any use? Anmccaff (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw1z4g;view=1up;seq=206 DeRussy carriage. No plates, gawdammit. Note author -Mr. Tommygun himself. Looking through the catalog for the Spfld museum, it appears they have a good deal of the 5" balanced pedestal manuals, but none digitized. The stuff that Google scanned has the usual bone-headed removal of all the illustrations. Anmccaff (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I found a couple of BP photos by poking around on Commons, and have just published 5-inch gun M1897. I've also been ID'ing the Commons "Unidentified artillery" category as best I can. As a by-product of that, I found a photo of a disappearing gun at Fort Hamilton with the long-gone Fort Lafayette in the background. Next up: 16-inch howitzer M1920. RobDuch (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You got some more paydirt there; the field carriage is for a 1903 or '02 3-incher, and the other fellow is a 4"/50. Nice. Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the 3-incher, category added. I spent most of today digging deeper in the UI artillery. I dipped into the German WWI guns mostly. It's a bummer that edits on Commons don't count towards your total. Soon I'll start on the 16" howitzer. RobDuch (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
[1]
I linked the 5" BP drawing at 5-inch gun M1897 and disappearing carriage, both in External links. I recently did 16-inch howitzer M1920 and 3.2-inch gun M1897. RobDuch (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fort Dailly video

11-minute video of Fort Dailly at https://www.facebook.com/groups/83599620075/permalink/10157942193505076/ , including period film of operating the 120 mm disappearing guns. RobDuch (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not bad at all, that. Thanks.
I've never really understood the infantry mortars in fixed installations; whole damned point of a stokes-type mortar is it's cheap, simple and portable. Anmccaff (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, I saw in a fort-related magazine what the country that makes Swiss watches does for targeting some guns: there's a map of the gun's sector and as it's trained and elevated a pointer moves to the calculated point of impact. RobDuch (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Budd Railroad Cars

I think you removed an addition I made to the Budd Railroad cars page. I wrote it because It seemed pretty interesting, a new commuter rail line and the old Budd cars being used. Do you think this is not worthy of the Wikipedia page? Would you like to write it so it sounds less like a press release? Thanks. Graycenphil (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on the RDC talk page, Graycenphil, but, in brief, no, I don't see this as noteworthy yet. (When its up and running might be a very different story.) Anmccaff (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

John D. Hertz

What is your reason for reverting my edit on John D. Hertz? Protocol is to provide a reason, nay?Patapsco913 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain your edit on the talk page for John D. Hertz. I do not understand it.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Numbered coast defense commands

I've found some period references to numbered coast defense commands, confusingly coinciding with the "Coast Defenses of..." period surrounding WWI. These appear to have been National Guard commands. Anyway, I've found the 1st CDC in Boston, 8th in the Bronx, 9th in Manhattan, and 13th in Brooklyn. Have you run into these as well? RobDuch (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They were joint active/guard - AUS, not USA, IMS, and were set up so that posts and units active or activated would be directly and automatically under nearby coast arty commanders. Only time they would be pure Guard is when there was no active post in the region, or there was a helluvalot of Guard. The army regs for '13 deal with them; don't remember anything older offhand. They were geographic, and seem to be more concerned with admin/training/maintenance, more than wartime operations. New York was big on Guard Coastal arty, if I remember right.
Looking back through older stuff, there appears to have been a 1st CDC in San Diego around the turn of the century, so there might be completely different places connected to the same numbers, depending on time period. This is all from old memory with a few new search engine runs, so take it with an appropriate sized grain of salt.
BTW, have you run across this Scientific American piece? Gotta be some uses for that around wiki someplace, and not just on the fort side. I like the beach-launched torpedo.
Also ran across a manual for CA electricians. Anmccaff (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Found it, for WWI era: General Order 98, War Department, July 26, 1917. lists units and CDCs. Haven't found a copy yet, though. Anmccaff (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This CDSG piece seems to have minable references. Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the prompt reply. The SA article looks great. Now to look for general orders of 1917. RobDuch (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Found 'em, @RobDuch:. Bust. Both the '17 and '16 general orders name the CDCs by "Defenses of (geographic name)", not by numbered district. Anmccaff (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Found in [2] that 241st CA was designated 1st CDC from 1920-1924, 245th was the 9th CDC same period, etc. Further analysis shows that NG CDCs existed at different times varying by state 1905-1924, sometimes with varying names, with most states having a "1st". At least I haven't tried to track company desigs like BW Smith did.RobDuch (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

HD Boston article

I have got back to doing Wikipedia, and am working on HD Boston in my sandbox. It is still highly incomplete, though I'm up to the 2nd/3rd Systems. I think my next move might be to put most of Roberts' info into the Fort Independence article, as it's very incomplete for the Colonial era. Of course doing the HD articles has got me thinking about articles for the CA regiments. RobDuch (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think some of the earlier and later stuff should wind up in there, or be kept completely separate? You got the battery at Fort Point and on the north end of what's now Atlantic, the battery by Copp's Hill, at the end of the millpond, and works at the Neck, the fort on Savin Hill - that was lost in legend before the Revolution, even, but the Boston stuff lasted past the Revolution, and I think some was armed in 1812. The works on Dorchester Heights also, come to think of it.
A lot of the Nike stuff was at old CA sites in Boston, too, and the whole cloak-and-dagger stuff with von Braun and so forth at Fort Strong ties in with both eras. Might make the article too damn big, of course. Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
With these articles I've been trying to include only the "big picture" prior to Endicott. There's a lot of gray area in that. I've been staying away from listing every battery, or even most of them. For the Nike stuff I plan to refer to it only in general terms. There's some info at NorthAmericanForts.com, but that may not include sites that weren't at or near an older fort. In some areas the Nike coverage was at completely different sites from the Coast Artillery, such as Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound, where 4-site rings were built around Providence and New Haven, but nothing at New London. Some day I'll probably get "Rings of Supersonic Steel" and do a bunch of Nike stuff. Since von Braun isn't in the Fort Strong article at the moment, I guess I'll put it there, and maybe it's worth a mention in the HD article. RobDuch (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=okCNGLr7920C&pg=PA333

HD New Bedford

How did we wind up editing Fort Phoenix at the same time? I also expanded Acushnet Fort with all the info I could dig up (which isn't much). RobDuch (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for stuff on Acushnet Fort. (The obvious answer, "fools think alike," I'll pass over as infra dig.) I think I may have found it. Poverty/Oxford Point in Fairhaven was owned by Eldredges. Fairhaven was part of New Beffa until 1812 or so. If that is it, there is no trace whatsoever left. Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've always heard "great minds think alike". I found a tourist brochure that mentions the Eldredge property Poverty Point brochure . Only problem is that it's not "two miles below the town", but it's worth putting in. I should get to it today. RobDuch (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the distance is an issue. The other possibility is that Fort Fearing/Phoenix's name was unofficial, and it itself is the mysterious unnamed fort. Dunno if there were any Eldredges hanging about there, though. Anmccaff (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Found an Eldredge and Somebody moving company by searching "Eldredge New Bedford", so they're not gone. Supposedly the two forts had different numbers of guns after 1808, but hey, info is fragmentary. There's also a conflict as to when Fort Phoenix was rebuilt and renamed, 1784, 1798, or both. Say, ever run into self-conflicting references? This online newspaper article Cape Cod Times is pretty good, but it's about HMS Nimrod's raid on Falmouth and the photo caption is about Fairhaven. Searching on "Nimrod Fairhaven" revealed several confusions just in the link summaries. I was trying to nail down the dates of the two raids, which I finally did thanks to Roberts. RobDuch (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

One suggestion

Hello A. I saw this thread User talk:Bbb23#Could you point me in the direction of someone... and I understand your frustration. The one thought I had was that you could watch the WP:VPT (if you don't already that is) and see if a thread akin to your question shows up. Then if an editor replies in a way that makes sense you could go to them directly and avoid the "open forum" stuff that is so annoying. I know it is a long shot but I am hoping that you can find someone who can help one day. Best regards and I hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd considered that, @MarnetteD:, but I find it harder to skim that page than perhaps I should, and wind up getting caught up in some of the discussions. (Often someone is being wrong on the internet and I wind up giving God the fig.)
But thanks to your suggestion, I actually stopped and thought (...but thinking is hard, and three minutes is a long time...), and now have some decent leads by searching the archives there. Again, thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for the fun links. Fingers crossed (well figuratively cause it is hard to type otherwise - heehee) in getting an answer. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop-centre trams.

Thanks for your input re drop-centre trams. I certainly didn't originate this section but felt that it needed to be modified and cleaned-up. Any assistance from you in adding to the information would be helpful. I couldn't find much other information on drop-centre tram or on Boon & Co (https://www.google.com.au/#q=boon+and+company+tram&spf=1).

If you can't add anything to this section, we we'll just wait and see if anyone else does. However, that hasn't really worked in the past.

Frankly, this section isn't all that important to the overall discussion on design and could well be deleted.

Regards, ALBERT (Isaacs).

@Albert Isaacs:, here are a few of the issues I see. In areas where Boon was the first maker of drop-centers that locals were familiar with, they often used it as a generic term for "drop centre", even if later examples came from another builder. Because of this, writers have sometimes mistakenly gone from one meaning of "Boon" to another. Next, the example shown was part of a long, strung out delivery contract, which may have changed over time, and the car itself may have been rebuilt or modified to match a later design. No way of telling. Next, it's not exactly a low floor, like the later examples quite certainly are. The later examples show fairly unmistakable Hedley-Doyle influence, and Brill was actively marketing there, with some success. One of the neat things about the Oceanic tram/streetcar market, like South Africa's trackless trolley market, was that it was open to North American influence, so you got competition from makes on an even bigger scale, and ideas from a wider pool of designers. Anmccaff (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anmccaff,

Why don't you incorporate most of the above on the page? Most of it is valid stuff and which adds to the story of drop-centre trams.

Regards, ALBERT.

@Albert Isaacs:, The problem with that is that, obvious as this is to someone who has read a few local transit histories, I don't know it there are any decent sources stating it as a generalization, so covering "who was first" would mean piling up a rather large pool of cites, some of them otherwise not worthwhile. The later use of low center door cars is a different story. Anmccaff (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anmccaff,

I have two suggestions: 1) delete the third sentence which refers to which was the first drop-centre; 2) say something like this: there are a number of possibilities as to which were the first drop-centre trams; these include ... ... ...

Regards, ALBERT.Albert Isaacs (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Accepted in the spirit meant, @Eggishorn:. (But I can't stand these things, so I'm removing it). Thanks, and many, many thanks for the work you've done in debullshifying the place. Anmccaff (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Just out of curiosity, I noticed the reference to "New Beffa" in the Fort Phoenix section above, suggesting you are from SE Mass. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, that area was also my old stomping grounds, so it's nice to meet a local! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Been keeping the "duh" in "Newenglanduh" for many decades. Outa curiosity, does the name @Eggishorn: suggest climbing rocks? Used to do that at Quincy and Crow Hill. Anmccaff (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I did do some rock climbing in college, but not now. W Mass, the 'Gunks, VT that sort of thing. My user name refers to a mountain in Switzerland, but "climbing" that is just a matter of walking. Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Railmotor vs. railcar

@ Anmccaff,

I'd believed that this article prefers BE & Australian terminolgy. For McKeen railmotor it may be o.k. to use the US term. The lemma "Weitzer railmotor" was my own choice, whenI started that article. I used "railmotor" as this vehicle was something like the European counterpart of McKeen's product. But I don't consider "Weitzer railmotor" a really familiar term. Too little has been written on it in English.--Ulamm (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ulamm, the article does seem to have started out in Strine, yes, but I suspect that's part of the reason it needs globalizing. These things were extremely common in the Americas, for instance, and you'd never know that from the article here. When you have an item named in a way that its manufacturers and users don't use in order to conform with an editorial convention, that's a bad thing. Bombarier doesn't call their product "railcars." Budd didn't. Brill didn't. I don't think Electro-Motive did. Anmccaff (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
WP has a nice tool: redirects.--Ulamm (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Which, Ulamm is the problem, not a solution, in some cases. By reinforcing a minority usage, Wiki drives users into researching by tendentious searches. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Your posts give me the impression, you want to americanize en.wiki. Just the opposite can be considered a legitimate guideline. En.wiki as a whole should show a balance of all countries having English as their prime language. One advantage of the non-US countries is their progress in using decimal mesures.
Perhaps you have noticed that I am from a country with another prime language. As a European, I have a sympathy for BE :)
--Ulamm (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This post of yours has given me the impression that you like arguing with straw men. Would you care to support your impression somehow?
About Australian terminology: I've just seen that Queensland Rail uses the term railmotor, even in their code, "RM" in the vehicle IDs.--Ulamm (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
...umm, yes. Often as separate words, "Rail Motor". Like more of Austraila, all of New Zealand, much of England, parts of India, some of the US, &cet, &cet, ad naus. Anmccaff (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Railtown 1897 State Historic Park
Damned, I had even read it, but then some days passed between reading and writing :(( --Ulamm (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nazism

You are correct. Hmains (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Mountain Railways of India

With all due respect, I do not believe that individual editors are authorized to unilaterally rescind good article status without discussion. If you believe the article is not worthy of good article status, you can post it on Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. El cid, el campeador ([[User talk:El cid, el campeador|talk]]) 17:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @El cid, el campeador:I was interrupted mid posting; I'll have the GAR up later today or tommorrow as time allows. In the mean time, I can't see why this would require nuking both edits; the tales about a "Colonel Barog" are very recent tourstic ghost-story glurge. There was extensive contemporary coverage of the tunnel construction at "Barogh Hill" or "Barogh Ridge" -this was a highly visible project just outside the summer capital; the name appears before construction; there is no mention whatsoever of anyone named Barogh or Barog -it's not a common English surname, and the Brits, whatever their other cultural deficiencies, tended not to lose track of their colonels. Anmccaff (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, done before I finished complaining! Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There are, as always, certain limited but notable exceptions. ;) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you know the problem there. He brought is son as his lieutenant, and brought his son's friend in a similar role. And we all know the trouble with second lieutenants and land navigation... Anmccaff (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Flakfortet

Hi Anmccaff

Hello, Viking1808

I see your comments to your recent edit to Flakfortet translates flak as antiaircraft!

Do you read Danish? The wiki article at https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev clearly gives the word Flak as a synonym for (among others) a sandbank. In the minimal stub in Danish https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakfortet the link to the word flak includes the word "sandgrund"

It could also have connected to ack-ack, wrecks, being skint, and filleted fish, IMS...and I couldn't find -any- contemporaneous cites before.

I contend the Danish name flak predated any use of antiaircraft weaponry. Do you agree? Comments? Viking1808 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

At the time I did not agree that the fort name predated flak in the AA sense, because I was unable to find any book or journal cites for the fort name before '29, and damned few of them past that until well past WWII. Since, I've dug up one from 1913 which explicitly referred to Saltholmflak fortet, so I withdraw my objection. That's comfortably before FLugAbwehrKanone got turned into an acronym and unleashed on the non-German world.
I've reverted the article to its original form; I probably should not have been so quick to assume an error based on limited information online.
That flak can mean mudflat or sandflat wasn't at issue; it's an obvious English cognate. Both the English and the Danish article, though, used rev (i.e. reef).
Do I read Danish? I was able to roughly read the Danish Flakfortet wiki article, only had to look up one word...but I have no idea about tense, declension, or conjugation. More difficult stuff, no, not without a dictionary, grammar text, and a few extra hours. ...maybe make that days, compared to someone who actually speaks it. Some of the articles linked fairly closely to it were almost completely incomprehensible. Anmccaff (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


Saltholm requires no translation. It is the name of an island in Øresund, and the "rev" is the reef associated with it. Flakfortet lies immediately north of Saltholm. Viking1808 (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not (etymologically) an island...or at least not any old island. That would be an ø. It's a holm, and holms, like eyots, are basically shoals with a little ambition, low bits of alluvium that happen to be above water. A sandbank near one is almost expected; they are damned near sandbanks themselves. (Again, the word has English and Scots cognates; just ask Sherlock.) Anmccaff (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments above. My original source (long ago) in Danish was here. as in my talk page number 19 "Flakfortet". Good hunting. Viking1808 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oath Keepers. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
BRD, etc. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

See you on AN3, then, @VQuakr:. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, given all the bad faith accusations, etc, ANI might make better sense. You wanna open it, or should I? Anmccaff (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. You may want to read WP:BATTLE first. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, @VQuakr:, we could swap little wikiurls all day over this; WP:Tag Team, WP:DTR, & WP:AGF come quickly to mind. I'd submit that anyone aligning himself with Morty C-137, especially on the OK page, will have a little trouble with that last one. Anmccaff (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The reader will note this foufarah was in defense of a now-blocked sock. r.i.l., @VQuakr:. Anmccaff (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mbarywiki

Accusing of having somebody of having a conflict of interest without evidence, especially when they refute it, is a personal attack. Do not do this again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Three points, user:Ritchie333. First, as I explicitly mentioned, user:Mbarywiki is but one of several people there whose edits shout "COI! COI!!" going back to the creation of the article over 10 years ago (it's a fork from a similar piece of advertising promo drivel.) So having one of many deny their obvious state isn't much of an argument. Next, Mbarywiki has refuted exactly nothing about their personal case; they've denied it, a very different thing. Mbarywiki's edits are overwhelmingly promotional material related to Los Angeles real estate; ducks seldom quack louder. Finally, if you have concerns, by all means,take it to ANI, I suspect this could use some disinterested admin oversight. Anmccaff (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What the hell is promotional about this edit? You need to assume a bit more good faith, m'lad. Meanwhile, I see you getting dinged for edit-warring, so may I suggest spending a bit less time getting aggravated about an editor who is not specifically in a dispute with you and more time writing some articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing, boyo. As I explicitly mentioned on Talk:Million_Dollar_Listing, their editing pattern before potential COI questions were raised looked very, very different from after. Even with the latest stuff, though, the edits are still overwhelmingly about LA real estate, maybe 17, 18 out of 25. Anmccaff (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The reader may also note that this, too, is in defense of a now-blocked sock. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Back on Wiki

After a long hiatus with World of Warcraft and a 3-week vacation to China, South Korea, and Japan, I'm back editing Wikipedia. I plan to work on "Harbor Defenses of New York" in my sandbox, most likely followed by Omaha-class cruiser. RobDuch (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've published Harbor Defenses of New York. I've also proposed merging the Battery Harris article that you created into Fort Tilden, which I've done some work on. The crusade against FortWiki would wreak havoc on many of my cites; however, most of the info there can be inferred from the CDSG Reference Guide. FortWiki has published most of the available info from the Coast Artillery's gun card database; its removal as a source would be quite a loss. RobDuch (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the whole anti-Fortwiki business rightly died a natural death; it's not an open wiki, and it is easy to verify when it was edited. Anmccaff (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
My latest mad scheme is spiffing up the articles on Coast Artillery harbor defense (HD) regiments. I've done the first seven, my previous work on 8th Coast Artillery (United States) needed only a couple of tweaks, and I'm about to go for 9th Coast Artillery (United States). I will eventually create (brief) articles for most or all of the HD regiments, in which the National Guard is currently conspicuous by its absence. You will note that another user has created a template for US artillery regiments, which is good but will become HUGE if people actually write stubs for all of them. I've expanded United States Army Coast Artillery Corps to enumerate all the post-1924 non-AA regiments, and provide counts of unit types that are too numerous to mention. RobDuch (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Who says the panama mount is just for artillery?

Not these guys. Anmccaff (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Very cool. RobDuch (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevance pardox

Hi, you once asked for a link to a copy of that deleted article. In case you never got it: here. You seemed in favor of its deletion, do you remember why? Seems like a legitimate phenomenon, so I'm interested in the reasons some believe otherwise. Davewild never answered me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey.dreyk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What to do next

Hi, Anmccaff - I am in agreement with your assessment of the close and weighed-in as such at the TP - I pinged you. So what's next? I doubt anything will change without a formal request to review the close. Not sure if you participated last month at RSN but there was a lengthy discussion there about the same topic that was never closed. There clearly are legitimate concerns that should not be ignored and while we many not win favor, at least we made those concerns known. Atsme📞📧 15:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, @Atsme:. When you get a "discussion" where no one is discussing anything, and nearly everyone is wrong, they are just wrong in opposite ways, bringing in an outsider or two can be useful, but the real problem is this wasn't really an outsider's conversation. I think I was the only participant who wasn't part of the mess that inspired it elsewhere. Anmccaff (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A shit week and I badly over-reacted to a harmless comment. Sorry about that. Anyways, have a brew. Ended up a good chat anyway. See you around! Irondome (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, I probably should have written a little more carefully, all said and done. Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

RS/N conversation

This question seems like the sort of poor military history sourcing you may be interested in. Just thought I'd let you know if you hadn't seen it already. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington

Hi, I’m commenting on your recent contributions to the article and about a particular user in general. You have so far:

  • Opened an ANI about a dispute with this user
  • Opened an SPI against him
  • Nominated an article he has developed for deletion
  • Started a thread on the article’s talk page which I can only interpret as dismissive, i.e. questioning his English ability [3]

I wonder if prior disputes have motivated these latest edits and if, in the interest of keeping the peace, you could consider stepping away from the article for a time. Otherwise, it may look like you intentionally aggravating a user which is not collegial. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

First, before addressing the specifics above, @K.e.coffman:, have you given a similar suggestion to @C. W. Gilmore:? And if not, why not? Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Gilmore developed the article and it's now at AfD, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect that he would step away. Also, he has not filed an SPI against you nor nominated any of your articles for deletion that I'm aware of. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Why not? If the article is actually incontestably worthwhile, it should be able to survive on its own merits.
Next, you yourself were, if memory serves, the only person who saw any merit to the edits on Ridgefield, WA that everyone else but CWG saw as obviously unsuitable, and you helped him create the new article...and now you are suggesting someone with other ideas back away from it? Anmccaff (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Your memory is faulty. I eventually voted "oppose" at the RfC: [4]. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No, my memory is fine; the operative word there is "eventually". Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I commented because it was beginning to look like harassment, with the steps that I included above. Furthermore, I did not post here until I saw this comment: "Can someone suggest an English translation of this?", which sounds belittling and condescending. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that something written to that standard should get put in mainspace so quickly. Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you've not participated in enough AfD discussions :-). Articles are rarely deleted for WP:TNT reasons; they have to be spectacularly irredimable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not talking about now, after; I think, regardless of the merits of whether it should exist at all, that it really wasn't cleaned up enough to take out of draft.
As the quiet removal of the marker stones from public land was discovered, so the outcry from the Sons of Confederate Veterans' awareness and resistance to them being removed from public view increased. isn't the clearest writing -and that, IMS, is the "improved version", and when a source says, flat out, that someone received death threats, the article shouldn't say they claim to have received death threats; that's POV editing at its worst. Anmccaff (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the writing is not the best, but there are less hostile and dismissive ways of pointing out the problems with the copy. BTW, I asked Gilmore to step away from Ridgefield, Washington, which he seems to have taken on board. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...that might mean it only gets cloned in three extra places instead of four. Anmccaff (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Alignment with deletion policies

The article is already at AfD, and now you're talking about "Speedy delete"? [5]. Note that the AfD is overwhelming "Keep" at this point. It would be inappropriate to nominate the article for speedy deletion, unless you plan to do it to rile up Gilmore. It definitely looks like harassment now. Please stop. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, I am pointing out that the article was eligible for a speedy delete, which strongly suggests there is a policy-based reason to delete it. I have yet to see any policy-based reasons to keep it, so far, it all looks like "I like it" or "it's different...somehow." Yeah, going speedy now is not an option, but the rationale behind it remains. Anmccaff (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that you are harassing another user and that you should stop. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)PS: @K.e.coffman:, now that the AfD is out of the way.... (Kidding. mostly) Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent activity

You may have noticed that I recently published List of Gato-class submarines. I'm currently working on the Balao class in my sandbox, and will move on to the Tench class. My life in retirement is divided between World of Warcraft, Skyrim, and Wikipedia. Until recently I was either all-gaming or all-Wiki; the last few weeks I've tried to balance them with some success. When I get the subs done (though "List of United States S-class submarines" is something that can stay on the back burner) I may go on to more Coast Artillery regiment articles. I've done what I readily could with the 1st through 15th CA regiments, but the 16th was reasonably good so I haven't got to it yet. I have yet to start a National Guard regiment article from scratch, but I plan to start with the 240th (HD Portland, ME) and work from there. The problem is the amount of info readily available through the CDSG varies considerably by regiment. At some point I will resume the HD articles with HD Delaware River. BTW, I've recently read WP:DGAF, Wikipedia:Wikipedihol, and related articles and found them amusing and applicable to my situation. I hope you are doing well. RobDuch (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have completed 18th Coast Artillery (United States) from scratch (well, from rebuilding the 15th CA article). There were six of these Regular Army HD regiments mobilized in 1940. After I get done with them I'll move on to the National Guard. Due to a suggestion from my brother, I've ordered "Army Lineage Series: Air Defense Artillery" for only $3.64 with free shipping. It should have a fair amount of CA info. Part of this series is on line, but not ADA. Conspicuous by its absence is anything on Field Artillery. RobDuch (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm not much use on these articles; it's outside what I'm familiar with, and it involves heraldry, which I find quite easy, in the sense that some people find quitting tobacco easy- "Anyone can quit smoking..I've done it 12 times?" Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've noted that a heraldry/lineage article can be quite divorced from a history article, for example the 3rd Air Defense Artillery mentioned no Civil War service until I put in a sentence. I'm currently planning to put a little history into the articles on the harbor defense units in the Philippines 1941-42. I'm not planning to do as much as I think possible, but enough to let readers know that they went through hell. One open question: Currently the Corregidor article includes some of the batteries there, while the Fort Mills article is a stub essentially devoid of information, except the mention of the battle that I put in there a couple of years ago. Should I propose moving the Fort Mills info to the Fort Mills article, or beef up the Corregidor article? Just so you know, the Army Lineage Series - Air Defense Artillery that I have is a 1985 edition, and only includes units that were active at that time. It seems that much of it is already on Wikipedia, due to its ready accessibility. I've also found a WWII infantry regiment that needs an article, the 328th. It was raised to round out New England's 26th Infantry Division after the 181st Infantry Regiment was detached for coastal security duty. The 328th served in Europe while the detached regiment was disbanded in early 1944. Of course when the 181st was reconstituted postwar it inherited the battle honors from the 328th and the 104th, another WWII regiment of the 26th ID. RobDuch (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Fort Mills" would be the logical place, but that doesn't seem right as a gut feeling. I suspect the best approach might be to sidestep and cover it in the "Harbor defenses of..." article. Anmccaff (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting detailed battery info in Fort Mills, but leaving the more famous batteries in the Corregidor article as is (well, of course linking the gun types). FWIW I sidetracked myself with 372nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (needed to add WW2 service), during which I looked at French Wikipedia as a source. Their War on Capitalization goes way beyond ours, glad I'm not working on that. RobDuch (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwirkle/Archive_3&oldid=1074917711"