Jump to content

User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Dudley

Odd that it didn't attract more supports; you can ask Graham if you can put it right back up again instead of waiting two weeks, since you dealt with all the comments you got and you're relatively new to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a shame! Although, the main aim was to get other people to critique it :) so I'm fairly happy about that. I may ask Graham about renomination. Hmm, would a MILHIST A-Class review see more interest or is there no point? Thanks for all your help with Dudley, the article is looking better and better. Someone else has been writing material about deception in recent weeks - so all in all a good month! --Errant (chat!) 21:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If it were mine, I'd put it back up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

New US Deception Unit Articles

I'd just like to let you know that I plan to write further articles covering the remaining US deception units created for Operation Fortitude. An article covering the 11th Infantry Division has just been added. I'm planning to tackle the 48th Infantry Division next.

One problem will be the lack of insignia for the 25th Armoured division when I tackle that one.Graham1973 (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I keep meaning to finish off User:ErrantX/Sandbox/List of Allied fictional units during World War II, will be good to see the topic area fleshed out on the US side :) I've had the insignia problem for 1st SAS (there is a description of one, but no example remains AFAIK). Let me know if I can help with your efforts :) (D-Day naval deceptions & Dudley Clarke is my current focus, then User:ErrantX/Sandbox/British agriculture during World War 2, but after that I will be back on units again) --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
48th Divison is up, 21st Airborne has been added, using the current picture, hope someone decides to convert it to the same format as the rest. I've made some tweaks to the FUSAG and 14th Army articles just to sort out who commanded what. I'm going to see if I can get the person who did the 39th Armoured division insignia to do a 25th Armoured division insignia. I don't know if you have have the book "Garbo: The Spy Who Saved D-Day", but there is a reference on page 225 to some kind of insignia for the US XXXVII Corps being passed to the Germans, ditto a 5th British Armoured Division insignia which Hesketh in his report on Fortitude describes in a footnote as being "...the sign of the blue lobster" (p. 296 St Ermin's Press (1999)). As I am not a UK resident I think you might have better luck following these up.Graham1973 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
All the Infantry/Airborne Divisons are up, some may have slight updates in the future as I continue re-reading "Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Plan" as I've found some things that Holt missed in his later book, including a description of the US XXXVII Corps insignia that was passed to the Germans by the agent codenamed Brutus.Graham1973 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've completed the last of the division articles for the 14th Army, that of the 25th Armored Division and it is now uploaded. I plan to tackle the Corps articles next before trying to overhaul the 14th Army article. Currently searching for a visual source for the XXXVII Corps insignia mentioned by Hesketh.Graham1973 (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Both 14th Army Corps articles are complete and uploaded. That just leaves the army itself to sort out. I've also updated the 14th Army page to include the full quote from Hesketh as well as the details on which of the Garbo sub-agents supplied the information and when the approximate period it was sent to the Germans.Graham1973 (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant! The "new articles" target I set for deception articles has been blown out of the water thanks to your efforts. I unilaterally reworked the WW2 deception template yesterday - I hope it looks ok?? I see you sorted out the formations segment, it looks great. This person who did the insignias; do you think he would be able to do one for the 1st SAS? I only have a textual description, nothing else. Today I plan to try and go through Holt's Appendix and fill out User:ErrantX/Sandbox/List of Allied fictional units during World War II --Errant (chat!) 09:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask, but he may be reluctant to proceed without online confirmation of the information. Also I picked up my first barnstar for the 25th Armored Division page, how do you add them to a userpage?Graham1973 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a request to the person who did the US 25th Armored Division insigina to try and to the XXXVII corps insignia, I have my fingers crossed.Graham1973 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the scan of some of the Fortitude insignia. I actually have that on the back cover of "Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Plan", but it is nice to see an online copy. There is a more complete picture of that page which shows British insignia only on page 396 of "Garbo: The Spy Who Saved D-Day", however the picture is black & white. Supposedly the original, which presumably has US insignia as well is in the Imperial War Museum.Graham1973 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe Wikimedia UK has contacts in the IWM.. I will see if I can get in touch with them... --Errant (chat!) 11:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just had a reply from the person I contacted, he's not willing to proceed without a visual copy of the insignia, which is fair enough, if you see the XXXVII Corps (United States) article there is no indication of the size of the internal components.Graham1973 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding some information from "Garbo: The Spy Who Saved D-Day" to your sandbox page. The book being the only good source I have on the Starkey OOB, which was 21st Army Group, having 2nd British Army, 6th British Army & 1st Canadian Army under its control. Information comes from Pg 138 & 139 which deals with Garbos role in Operation Cockade.Graham1973 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely go for it adding content to that page. I am not sure whether it will work as a full list - or would need splitting or?? Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 21:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human penis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Orphaned non-free media (File:Encase.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Encase.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Encase logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Encase logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke

Hey Tom, following on from our chat t'other day, I just thought I'd remind you to nominate Clarke at WP:MHACR—I reckon it will breeze through, but there are almost always minor issues that fresh eyes can pick up, and the exposure will stand it in good stead for another FAC bid. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic engineering

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic engineering. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair play

I posted a comment at my usertalk for you...did you have a chance to look at that thread Malleus was whimpering about? The one where he insulted three editors? Anyway, nothing can be done or will and I won't blame you if you decide to not light a fire, which you may not even think need be done.--MONGO 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations on your A class review of Dudley Clarke!!! I loved this article. Great work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) I'm very pleased with the result! --Errant (chat!) 20:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
See, I do have some good ideas! ;) Hopefully you'll take it on to FAC soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hehe. Yes, thanks a lot Harry! I'm going to get a couple of my other drafts to GA first to let Clarke "establish", but I am sure he will be a FA by years end. --Errant (chat!) 13:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On root causes versus surface symptoms

I noticed your "warning" on my talk page regarding calling out MONGO for his lies; I see you also warned Malleus and MONGO himself. Well done. Are you also going to look at the actual lies MONGO told? You'll find links to them at User talk:MONGO#moved from page. Let me also be very clear that I have no regrets about the language I used in dealing with MONGO; malicious behaviour like this thoroughly deserves to be called what it is. A user who lies maliciously, expressly to get another user into trouble is beneath my contempt. This remains the case. --John (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is responsible for every single time he has called another editor a twat, a cunt, an arsehole or a liar or told them to fuck off. HE is the one hitting those little buttons on the keypad. If Malleus is "in trouble", its because of his actions. I did not lie. You know what you were arguing about before and during that GAR...and I researched and found the information in an effort to satisfy your concerns..but it didn't do that because you wanted the fringe story, not the factual one. My additions are STILL in the article. When I mentioned my edits repeatedly at the GAR you and Malleus said zero...I tried to get some acknowledgement but still nothing. calling me a liar is bad enough, but to add the other insults is preposterous for any editor, much less an administrator. This is far from the first time you have insulted me so...you called that article a walled garden, said it was dominated by nationalist editors that it was a toilet...I got all the diffs you might not ever want to see John. If you persist on this path of calling me a liar, I am going to file an arbitration case...or better yet, save me the time and open one with my name on it...please do me that favor as I am now limited on time.--MONGO 10:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Both of you are slinging insults at each other, and you are not encouraging me to resolve the underlying problem by acting like, frankly, children (sorry, but that's the nicest way of saying it that I could come up with). If you have evidence of misbehaviour and are serious about getting it addressed (rather than using it to be rude to each other in whatever venue) then there are mechanisms for that: present it on a noticeboard and ask for sanctions. If all you really want to do is bicker then please don't do it on Wikipedia, it's the height of tedious.
Sorry for being brusque, but that really is the bottom line. --Errant (chat!) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I see, so that was a drive-by "warning" that you made without actually investigating the situation regarding MONGO's lies. I wasn't quite sure until now. Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in the root causes of the problems. I will consider my options for having MONGO's lies dealt with centrally. If you ever change your mind and wish to step up and deal with the underlying problem, you can let me know, or indeed it would be pretty easy to check the disparity between the diff I presented and the evidence MONGO was able to provide. Cheers, --John (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No, John. It was me logging in and seeing the two of you (and others) swinging hammer and tongs. I encourage you to iron out the dispute (or let someone do it for you), but I am telling you both to stop with the slanging match. And if the latter is all you are both interested in then please don't. I looked into the dispute briefly, but there was too much yelling to discern the cogent issues - but on the face of it it looks like a petty dispute born from some disagreement you both had over and article, one that looked to boil down to two peoples interpretation of what other peoples comments meant. A worthless exercise. --Errant (chat!) 17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
As worthless as your opinion on the dispute, if that is all you saw. Never mind, I am sure it will all come out in the wash. Again, if you change your mind and want to look into the issues, there's a diff for you to click on where MONGO tells a series of out-and-out lies, then there's a bunch of shouting from him when I call him out on it. He is not able to substantiate it because it is a lie. But if that's too much trouble, I quite understand. Here's the diff, in case you change your mind about wanting to help resolve the situation. All the best, --John (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
John...look....You and I have a choice here...we can go and see if arbcom can work with us on an interaction ban or we can continue to slap each other. I can't see why, after you scolded me for "trying" to get Malleus in trouble, that you turn around and are trying to get me in trouble. I suggest the following as a solution to present to arbcom or arbcom enforcement (since we have both been sanctioned by them in the past...a)Any thread you start I will avoid. b)Any thread I start you will avoid. c)If either of us is heavily engaged in any thread started by another, we will avoid each other, or avoid the thread itself d)Neither of will initiate a request for adminstrator or arbitrator action against the other unless the aforementioned issues are breached. thoughts?--MONGO 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX...simply put, John and I simply don't get along...we haven't for years and I doubt we ever will. This is a big pedia and we can avoid each other, but we tend to bump heads whenever we interact. Earlier this year John said he would stay away from me for a year...until a week ago this was the case. Anyway, would it be possible for you to approach John and hammer out an interaction ban we can mutually agree on, akin to the one I've outlined above? I thin it would benefit myself, John and more importantly, the pedia. If you wish to not get in the middle, that's understandable.MONGO 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had noticed you clashing on and off. Both of you are editors whose work I have huge respect for, so if an interaction ban means more of that from you both then I'll happily try to broker it. The problem, as it is, would appear to be Malleus. Both of you seem to have diametrically opposing views of the guy, and so if his conduct gets raised again I foresee it being a problem (i.e. a venue you both want to comment in... in opposition). Have you any thoughts to resolve that conundrum? --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be no shortage of people with opinions about M, two less talking wouldn't hurt. Perhaps, as part of any iban, these two just agree not to comment on M at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
William...I doubt John would readily agree with that and it may be counter productive since the two of them have worked well together on article development. John and I disagree on almost everything so an interaction ban akin to the one I proposed above would be best. Therefore, if there was a situation where John was commenting about Malleus I would have to stay out of that...so along those parameters, it would include any discussion sections at future arbcom cases...I'm still thinking about the feasibility of this. I'm not interested in a dram laden full blown arbcom case since it will be mutually assured destruction...I'll arrive at that with everything and I'm sure he will too. It would be best to have some mediation as to how this can be a simple interaction ban...I imagine that for the most part that John and I are gentlemen enough to mostly stay away from each other...but some formality of that might be helpful.MONGO 11:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note to John on his talk page - it might be worth a read as some portions apply to both of you (although it seems like you have decided the course of action you would prefer). As I said; if John is interested then I am happy to broker an IBAN on the understanding that it would be entered into the editing restrictions, and that I would be fairly harsh in handing out sanctions for it being broken. This is because I did a couple of IBANs in the past and they floundered due to gaming & lax enforcement (although ultimately it worked out in both cases, the interim was a pain in the neck). I think you are welcome to comment on Malleus, or talk/work with him, in similar venues (say an Arbcom page or whatever) but threaded discussion or mention of each other (even tangentially) would be out. That would probably include the dispute that includes the three of you (i.e. 9/11). --Errant (chat!) 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that he had removed your mediation effort. He appears to be sidelined unless Jclemens resigns or similar. Anyway, I have no interest in having John sanctioned...we just need a formal agreement to avoid each other and a broker to mediate it. Your proposal sounds reasonable overall.MONGO 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Please comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/October&oldid=1148823205"