User talk:StatusRed

Chindits Edit

Please review verifiability, a core Wikipedia principle. All information must be supported by reliable sources. Personal recollections may well be correct and honest, but there is no way to confirm this without reliable secondary sources. HLGallon (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the three web sites you propose: forums and guest book comments are not generally reliable, and require trawling through lots of ungrammatical ramblings, while the Burma Star site does not appear to specifically support the contention that Northern Irish soldiers formed any substantial part of the Chindits. I don't doubt that several did, but this brings me to the question of whether it was truly "interesting". Were N.I. personnel specifically selected for the Chindits, or did they specifically volunteer in significant numbers for them? I have seen neither contention mentioned anywhere in any printed work on the Chindits. HLGallon (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page

What does it matter if you deem it to be interesting or not? That's purely a matter of opinion, regardless that was only a note in the revision, not part of the article. I've proven to you that it's true with sources and it did no harm to the article, it just added extra information that other people may consider to be interesting, such as myself. It's not for you to decide to leave out information because you don't find it interesting.

Whether it did no harm to the article is arguable. The article is about the Chindits and would it be beneficial to have all sorts of non-sequiturs added to it? How about ... half the Chindits were British (including twenty who were called Smith)...? The question is not really whether the fact is interesting but whether it is relevant and significant to the article. N.I. personnel served in the Chindits, no dispute, but no doubt they also served in the paras, the Desert Rats and the blankety-umpteenth HAA Regiment RA. As I have mentioned above, N.I. servicemen were not selected for the Chindits, nor were they excluded. Their presence was no more than the chance of their unit being drafted for the mission, so one would expect their numbers in the Chindits to match the proportion in the British Army as a whole. Would you realistically consider adding your parenthetical note to the article for every unit and formation for which you can find a name in your forum sources?

The place to discuss the terms of service of N.I. personnel is the article on British Army during the Second World War where it would be relevant, and of more than passing interest. HLGallon (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

In a recent edit to the page Toronto Transit Commission, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]