User talk:Twelsht/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ohio Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter is delivered by bot to all project members of WikiProject Ohio. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in the future or would like to receive it in a different format, please note this in the appropriate section at the NewsDesk. Thank you, §tepshep

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Specify level of copy-editing[edit]

Hi Twelsht

Could you please specify your level of copy-editing for the military history project here.

These are the levels:

  1. Copy-edit lite: basic proof-reading, spellchecking, punctuation.
  2. English variant conversion: for example, from American English to Commonwealth English, or vice versa.
  3. Naturalising: copy-edit for editors whose English is fluent but not perfect.
  4. FAC prose copy-edit: flow, structure, elegance.
  5. FAC technical copy-edit: MoS-compliance for dashes, hard spaces, numbers, measurement conversion.

Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter[edit]

--  jj137 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner[edit]

Hi. I had noticed that you were instrumental in developing this article and taking it to featured article status. Since that time, as you've probably seen, a lot was done to it. I finally did manage to deter the contributor from adding anything else to it, but frankly, right now, it's got a huge set of problems. I did tell him that the formatting and size and other issues was jeopardizing its FA status. It's nearly doubled in size from when you went to FA four months ago, and my own opinion is that much of it needs to come out. What the editor did was develop a Warner Bros. studio history and basically insert it into all the brothers' articles. I started to contact you about it, and saw that you hadn't been on Wikipedia for three months, so I started to address it myself.

I had spoken with Rossrs not long ago about what might be done with it and to date, he hasn't given his opinion. Mine was to cut the bulk of the studio history, which really mostly belongs in that article, and take this one back down to a manageable size. I had started working through on a mess of odd citation formats and tried to make them meaningful and logical. If you'd look at this diff, you may be able to see what I was working on. The odd reference formats, the same reference in one sentence up to three times, bare web citations... I was getting a headache so I stopped for a couple days. I did cut over 5000 bytes from it by working almost exclusively on the references. I am very glad to see you back and trying to address some of it, if you need my help, please let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that I didn't come across this earlier on. There had been issues with the editor on other articles, one of which was Rudolph Valentino. I came across this after I saw some odd changes made on the Bette Davis article, which is also a featured article, that were made from the Warners book this editor read. At that time, it was a problem with how the reference was being formatted and it became a larger issue. I asked another editor with whom I often work to help me, but it became contentious and we both basically gave up, except for my concern over the Jack Warner FA status.
I'm not inclined to bring this up for an FA review at this point, and I'm hopeful you can work it out. On whatever you choose to cut out, I'll back you. When I looked at the history, I saw that there were problems coming up at the time of the article gaining FA status, and I'm not entirely sure I know why they didn't put the review on hold at the time since the editor was still tampering with it. As you could probably tell, I wasn't trying to trim it down at the time you came back, I was only trying to fix the overt spelling/grammar errors and cleaning up the odd citations. I will keep looking in, and please, if you need me to do anything, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I just noticed you are back at it. Welcome back! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daysleeper! From here on, I'm going to try to balance Wikipedia with real-life responsibilities so I don't have to disappear every few months. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Billy the Kid[edit]

Whats with the deletion of detail? The Lincoln county war was probably the defining event in his life yet you have reverted the details to make it read as a summary for an article rather than "the" article. This exclusion of facts results in the article making false implications. For example Morton and Baker are presented as undisputed murders when there is no evidence for this no matter how likely it was. You deleted the fact that the soldiers were Buffalo soldiers which implies to a reader they were not. The fight in Lincoln now reads as if only the regulators were involved and was much smaller than it actually was. etc etc etc. The worst is you also seem to be relying on a single source instead of finding what historians believe. Wayne (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi Twelsht, as you are the one who copyedited the Cold War article, may I ask you to make a final verification of its prose? We would like to put it as soon as possible under another FAC, and we wan't to make sure we won't have the same problems as last time (the article failed the first FAC mainly because of its prose). Thanks a lot and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to have a look over the "Second Cold War" (1979–85) section, as recently there were some discussions upon it. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, a proposed new version here and discussion here. Cheers, Dhatfield (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner[edit]

I have restored my changes to the Jack Warner page. You had reverted back to information that is either incorrect or unsubstantiated. My changes were carefully considered and based on primary sources. The sources you've used are not as much concerned about presenting facts (or even educated guesses) as they are about repeating heresay. Undoubtedly some things in these books are based on oral history within the Warner family, but oral history is not a reliable source, and from what I've read personally, the authors don't qualify their statements. They don't say "perhaps this happened" or "according to oral history." Unless Abraham Warner wrote an autobiography, we can never prove his thoughts and motivations, as well as some things he is claimed to have done. It makes for an interesting read, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This makes the article misleading and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. None of this is about any personal investment in this article. I just take issue with how much misinformation is repeated on the internet, and Wikipedia is a well-used source. It should be as accurate as possible. The format change of the citations is not an issue with me, but I didn't see that they were necessary, so I didn't modify them after I made the revision. Declair (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

regarding Jack Warner[edit]

In editing my talk page, I see a response by you there that for some reason doesn't appear on the actual page (at least not on my computers), so I didn't read it before posting the above message. I disagree with you on several points. Most importantly, I don't think the sources you give fall into the Wikipedia's description of "reliable sources." A book issued by an established publisher doesn't necessarily make it a credible source. "Don't believe everything you read" comes to mind. You say "none of them is treated as "God's truth" in the context of the article. They are claims and interpretations that were published. Not all of them agree." You don't present them as anything but fact - no qualifying statements, as I've mentioned above. If they disagree, how do they disagree, and more importantly, why? As for being a major contributor to the article - yes, that's commendable, but there are many people out here who are experienced and well qualified to write scholarly articles. I know what the latter is and isn't, and it is the spirit of Wikipedia to have a community of editors, not just certain editors. Lastly, my citation formatting is conventional and acceptable. I haven't investigated whether or not Wikipedia requires specific formatting for its cite, so if mine were contrary to that, I wasn't aware of it. Declair (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get a sense of competition in these publications. It is my impression that the writers were repeating things without fact checking (which is common in books from major publishing houses that are not concerned about scholarship). There are definately instances where publications rely heavily on earlier ones regarding this family. The books I have read are in the "creative writing" mode, in varying degrees, since that sells more books. Conflicting information may be purposeful, may be due to poor research or bad copy editing, but that is beside the point when there is a better source for the information. I'm not going to challenge some of the unsubstantiated things, which I had done with my initial editing changes. I am particularly concerned about things like the immigration information, the Yiddish names, the proper places of origin and the number of children. The most credible source that I know of for this is the one I cite. If I have missed or misread something else, I stand corrected (but would like to know about it). You say "we're not in a position to offer opinions on the reliability of one source over another." There are standards for scholarly writing. Academic journals, for instance, require it. If there are no footnotes citing primary sources to back up information or educated guesses made after careful review of those sources, it isn't good for encyclopedic content. You may have to dig deeper to find the good sources, if they exist, but the effort should be made due to how important and prominent Wikipedia has become. I can't imagine the folks at Wikipedia would disagree with that. My reading of the site's guidelines clearly supports what I am saying. The article I cite on the Warner family is based on primary evidence, with the sources cited. This does challenge information in book form. I'm not saying you should have been aware of that article, but now that you do, you don't seem to take it as seriously as the books. I'm trying to understand your approach to this. Do you not agree that sources that present evidence of their statements are more reliable than conflicting ones that don't? You said you know that not all books are credible, but you still favor the ones on the Warner family. Is it because they were put out by large publishing companies? They are still in the "creative writing" mode, to varying degrees. Their intent is to tell an interesting story, not to present something in documentary form (again, unless I've misread something). I rewrote the particular paragraph that deals with the things in question but deleted very little of it (a different edit from the first one I made). I think this is a reasonable compromise. I'm not invested in changing what you've written out of some sense of superiority - I just think this particular part of the Warner family history has suffered from a lot of misinformation, and what I've written will help correct this. I get the feeling from your messages that you want to have control over this article, which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. "I welcome any contributions that will help to improve it." Isn't it Wikipedia that welcomes input from the community as long as it adheres to their standards? I believe mine do. If Wikipedia disagrees with me, that is their prerogative, but no one editor or contributor has proprietary rights over these articles. If you have a problem with my changes you need to contact the site about it rather than dismiss or delete them. (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)