User talk:Jack90s15/Archive 1

September 2018

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that in this edit to Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was changed by Jack90s15 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.858253 on 2018-09-08T21:11:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

{{unblock|reason=No Vandalism I am only Updating the page with up to date info for the  Number of deaths  under Joseph Stalin~~~~}}

. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page editing style.

I see you have been blocked. I took a liberty to re-format your last post at the "Excess mortality ..." talk page to bring it to a common style. When your block will expire, could you please stick to this style? Your signature should go after your post (otherwise other people have difficulties with understanding of who writes to whom). Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my block was only for September for trying to edit the wrong way but now i know how to thanks for showing me the right way to do the talk page!!Jack90s15 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

With reference to this edit: [1]. Er, no. Please read MOS:NUMERAL. Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jack90s15, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

I saw that you had not been sent one of these. It may help. Britmax (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Moxy (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back to the talk page.....wait to see what others say.....dont get block because you won't get your say in the discussions.--Moxy (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC) I will wait and see what others have to see before I do anything else thanks for helping me !!Jack90s15 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in any article is a bad idea. Doing so in one of Wikipedia's highest profile articles is a particularly unhelpful thing to do. Please stop, or you will be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Moxy said I will wait and see what others have to see before I do anything else Jack90s15 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Hello, I'd like to provide some feedback on your editing in articles concerning World War II:

Firstly, you do not seem to have a high level of knowledge of this topic. You are adding semi-random text sourced from a very narrow range of sources to articles. In many cases other sources say different things, or it is unclear what you are adding actually means.
Starting multiple talk page discussions simultaneously as you did on the World War II article's talk page and at Talk:Nuremberg trials is very unhelpful. It is hard for other editors to engage with this. Please raise one issue at a time, in a single thread.
Do not ever copy and paste text from other websites into Wikipedia as you did at War crimes of the Wehrmacht. This is a copyright violation.

You are currently on track to be blocked for disruptive editing. I would strongly encourage you to stick to areas in which you have strong knowledge, and edit carefully. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I do have a lot have knowledge of the topic I'm just not used to Wikipedia. I'm still trying to get a hang of it I will not do the posting multiple times in the talk page any more than.

And I will not copy and paste something from a site I'll put in my own words

And I'm not trying to disruptive edit I helped with the number of deaths under Joseph Stalin and the World War II Death Page and the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union page to

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! (Hohum ^@) 17:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips I will try not to soapbox @Hohum:

December 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are now edit warring across multiple articles. Please stop this immediately. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will I said on the main page of War crimes of the Wehrmacht I will stop for that page @Nick-D:

Sources

Hey Jack90s15, thanks for the help on Wehrmacht, however, please notice the format of the sources cited on the rest of the page and try to follow that system. You will notice that most of the sources that you place are already placed somewhere else in the article. Likewise, you should try to add the page number to these sources when adding them. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the input will do! @Skjoldbro:Jack90s15 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference spam

Could you read over WP:CITESPAM.....don't get blocked and your favorite website black listed because it's being placed all over with very little value or even relevance to topics at hand.--Moxy (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest you read and follow WP:RS and WP:V, as well.

thank you for the in put I was putting the USHMM has a source

Encyclopedias are for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. The content is written by an academic for an academic audience.but is not “peer-reviewed”. its best not to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information. However, much of the content in encyclopedias are referenced, so an alternative is to cite the reliable source rather than the encyclopedia itself.--Moxy (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this. Adding more references doesn't make something more true. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks guys for showing me the right way to source! I really appreciate it (talk)Jack90s15 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Moxy Jack90s15 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

I cannot see any case for your reverting my editing-down of the opening sentence (for which I received a prompt message of thanks).

You say it’s been there since last year. That doesn’t give it credibility. It just means that no-one has got around to improving it. I need to know why you think the current version is better. I note that you are a fairly recent recruit to Wiki, who was blocked on your first day. As I have made more than 8000 edits over nearly six years without creating any issues, I’m not sure it is you who should be telling me the ground-rules. I feel that it would have been more appropriate to leave your comment on the Talk Page. Valetude (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valetude:Jack90s15 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC) The only reason I reverted it was because it was leaving out that Hitler broke The Pact, and invade the Soviet Union. that is very important for the opening it shows the end result,of The molotov-ribbentrop Pact Operation Barbarossa.[reply]

I agree with Valetude. I think the fact that Hitler broke the pact should be explained later, at the end of of the lead. In general, the lead structure should be modified, because it contains a lot of marginally important facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert:Jack90s15 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC) I see what you mean I will add it at the end of it[reply]

Talk:The Holocaust

Hi Jack, please indent and sign your talk-page posts. Otherwise the page becomes harder to understand and navigate. See Wikipedia:Indentation and Wikipedia:Signatures. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 23:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the two pages to read up on and ok got it,I hope you have a good night or day where you are from! @SarahSV:

Please stop reverting yourself

On Adolf Hitler, please stop reverting yourself. It clutters up the page history and makes other editors' watchlists more difficult to use. Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok!! I don't want to make the page history difficult to use I got itJack90s15 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spec Ops: Covert Assault (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please provide more proper video game reviews and previews from WP:VG/RS sources, not user-generated sections on Metacritic or the user-generated Gamespot page sections.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spec Ops: Covert Assault and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spec Ops: Covert Assault, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack90s15! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Dresden revert.

I reverted your addition because it was not grammatically correct, not properly capitalized, misused spaces badly, and it used weasel words (WP:WEASEL). In short, not a worthy addition, particularly when half the page already clearly stated the same thing. Normally this sort of change would be considered vandalism. - NiD.29 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IT got resolved with BRDJack90s15 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Operation Barbarossa

Mentioning the Wehrmacht's complicity makes no sense when it was already well-spelled out in the previous sentences regarding the German Army's behavior and the contravention of the Geneva accords. To this end, your edit was a redundant addition. Therefore I revered it accordingly. Also, whenever you edit a page, you will want to follow the citation style which predominates an article. In the case of Operation Barbarossa, it is all harv ref style.--Obenritter (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what you mean and I get how it was redundant and thanks for the tip with the citation style @Obenritter:Jack90s15 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding sources or information to the Operation Barbarossa page that cannot rightfully be verified, especially when it is not from recognized RS material. If you can find another trusted academic work that verifies this claim about the number of rapes, use that instead. To be honest, I am suspicious of this claim as a subject matter expert on Nazi Germany, who has never heard such exaggerated figures before. Funny that none of the foremost experts on the history of the Third Reich (a few of whom I am personally acquainted with) have never made this observation before. Let me reiterate--find these rape and childbirth figures someplace else in a well-known and respected journal or from a trusted academic publisher and then it might be more palatable.--Obenritter (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the child births comes from Bos, Pascale (2006). "Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993". Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 31: 996–1025.

and the other one comes from "The debate on the exhibition" War of annihilation. Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-1944 " Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941–1944 im Kieler Landeshaus (Debate on the War of Extermination. Crimes of the Wehrmacht, 1941–1944)

on page 9 of it it says IT says on page 9 of the Pdf

Auf Basis biologischer Gegebenhei-ten lässt sich davon ausgehen, dass statistisch gesehen etwa jeder zehn-te Geschlechtsverkehr eine Schwan-gerschaft zur Folge hat. Folgerichtig muss von etwa 10 Millionen Verge-waltigungen deutscher Männer allein auf russischem Boden ausgegangen werden.

On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. Consequently, it is assumed that about 10 million rape of German men took place on Russian soil alone

But I will look for other sources from other journals and academic publishers like you saidJack90s15 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC) @Obenritter:[reply]

Herr Jack90s15 --- ich verstehe genauso, dass es gibt Information aus dieser Austellung (Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941–1944 im Kieler Landeshaus) aber sicherlich kann man einen entsprechenden Buch darüber finden. Normalerweise, deutsche Austellungen wie dieser sind mit Verfügungs und Ausbildungsmateriel begleitet. --Obenritter (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's why I said I will look for sources from more journals and academic publishers Jack90s15 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are falsifying numbers from sources

[2][3][4][5]

In these edits you have changed a number that came from a reliable source without adding your own source. As an end result, you are pretending that the number you invented comes from the same source. This disruption of source attribution unacceptable. Stop doing that immediately.

I am pinging @Nick-D: who has previously brought up your editing here. --Pudeo (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a formal investigation is in order. We need to examine how many articles have been affected --Moxy (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I already spend some time going over the contribs but it takes a long time because the edits are so cluttered and include things like self-reverts. --Pudeo (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to falsifying anything the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin I was helping with when I first started out and the page was a work in work in progress at the time see the talk page

and I put the casualties of the Soviet Union to what the government of Russia puts the Soviet war 'losses' at 26.6m ? that's what I put The post-Soviet government of Russia puts the Soviet war 'losses' at 26.6 million,they don't have it at 30 million on the basis of the 1993 study by the Russian Academy of Sciences, including people dying as a result of battle and war related exposure. This includes 8,668,400 military deaths as calculated by the Russian Ministry of Defense. with sources

and for the Hitler one I was using the USHMM number? I am not trying to falsifying anything@Woogie10w: @Paul Siebert: @K.e.coffman: @Nick-D: @Pudeo: @C.J. Griffin:

for the excess mortality under Joseph Stalin for the older edit that was when I was really starting out and had no idea what I was doing and for the other one it was undone because I made a mistake with it the number of people in the gulag thought it was 18 million in all but its colonies to I was not trying to falsify any number

Jack90s15 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It's the guess work based on other Wikipedia articles and addition/change of numbers based on non-academic sources that is a real concern. So let's get you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and review Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy courses pls. I see your trying to be productive...but it's also clear your new to the topic based on your usage of websites over academic publications that have been out for decades. Perhaps best to talk to one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators for advice on where to find reliable statistics.....they can point you to bibliographies with academic publications... like the one I created Bibliography of Canadian military history...that contains many publications that can be seen online and have search options.--Moxy (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate the help with this and I will join that and ask for help with sources for pages I am trying to Edit and will look over the AcademyJack90s15 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC) @Moxy:[reply]

Jack90s15, this is getting ridiculous. This talk page is a long-running series of messages asking you to stop messing up articles. To be blunt, you are not competent to be editing in the fields you are editing. The same patterns keep repeating themselves. You are replacing material, and at times edit warring, on the basis of a very narrow range of sources (for instance, the US Holocaust Museum), without paying attention to the broader literature. You are also repeatedly inserting misleading statements in articles. Adding false numbers on the basis of your own unqualified interpretation of complex sources above is totally unacceptable. You are on track to be blocked from editing. If you want to contribute, please edit very cautiously and stick to areas in which you actually have significant knowledge of. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what happened with the pages that were mentioned, like the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin with the numbers. and I am going to take the suggestion I was giving and do the WikiProject Military history and the Academy and ask for help to and yes I have been Lazy with using that one source I do admit that is why I took the suggestion about the Military history/Academy Jack90s15 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC) @Nick-D:[reply]

Hello there, in the defense of Jack 90s15. I think Jack is just a bit over enthusiastic, might have trouble editing wiki but has otherwise good intentions. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Mass killings under communist regimes: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Vwilding (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input will use them the next time if neededJack90s15 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deletion of Foreign Military Support on Eastern Front

This is a response to your last recent message towards me about you saying I had good intentions but they would be confusing to the user.Thank you for the respectful response.I wish to say that I think that it should stay up seeing as to the Fact Spain sent the Blue Division,Vichy France the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism and Denmark the Free Corps Denmark.Since none abdicated to that of the Formal Axis powers but sent units to fight along side them.I cite the Korean War info box as it contains nations that sent military as well as medical support.This would be the should be the same case for those three nations that sent units to fight against the Soviets in the Eastern Front.I am still researching whether other nations sent fighting units to the east as it is one of my favorite topic.One last thing I wish to say is that I hope when you come across an edit of mine and see it is not useful or murky instead of deletion that you contact me and ask the situation of it since i read all my notifications so that we can come to a resolution that benefits those within the Wikipedia Community.I hope you will allow me to prop it back up.Should I seem in any part of this message disrespectful I have no intention to do that in the message. Thank You JoshRamirez29

for the info box its like a fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain

and adding ever thing like the Reichskommissariat and adding all the volunteers and conscripts is not needed info box its like a fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain Jack90s15 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that is why I undid it Info box its like a fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points

for the Korean War info box it summarized the important points

the volunteers and conscripts is part of the Eastern Front and WW2 but is not the main part of the Eastern Front

the USSR and china sending Medical support Other support was a main part of the war Jack90s15 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Korean War One shows the other countries that sent supplies but for the Eastern Front it's best to keep it to the main players since it's very complicated and you don't want the reader confused by adding the Reichskommissariat all the volunteers and Concepts that were sent Jack90s15 Jack90s15 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read your last response about my response.I still think they should be in the infobox seeing as to the fact that they don't fit under Axis members, as non adhered to the Tripartite pact Client States since they had self sustaining economies or CO belligerents since they didn't fight separate wars.I do however understand why the Reichskommissariat should not be added.However these sovereign nations that sent formal fighting units along side other axis nations should be put under foreign support seeing as how The soviets and Chinese are put under support as they sent foreign support without a proper declaration of war.I hope that this message should change your mind. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's for the Korean war not for a front

they fought under the Wehrmacht and the SS the foreign volunteers and conscripts

like I said

Info box its like a fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important pointsJack90s15 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if you put ever thing then the info box will be to crowded

Military project member is concerned

User talk:Moxy#Confirmation bias?.--Moxy 🍁 13:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

{{unblock|reason='Jack90s15 (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 ~~~~}}

.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what did I do wrong why was I blocked I was undoing the edits to stop Them from removing the information or putting wrong information like the two times they did today? @Materialscientist:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack90s15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

'what did I do wrong why was I blocked I was undoing the edits to stop Them from removing the information or putting wrong information like the two times they did today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacification_of_Algeria&action https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll&action=history =history Jack90s15 (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Jack90s15 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating Wikipedia policy on edit warring. It doesn't matter that you feel you were correct, as everyone in an edit war thinks they are correct. To be unblocked before your block expires, you must indicate that you understand this. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Indigenous intellectual property. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring

Your recent editing history at Indigenous intellectual property shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removals for Howling Mad Murdock.

Hi Jack90s15, it looks like you're doing a good job reviewing new changes. Could you re-review the reversion to Howling Mad Murdock? It's a disaster of opinion and original research, and needs a bold streamlining before tags can be removed. 216.227.50.241 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never removed any tag it still there saying This article has multiple issues.?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if you would undo your revert of my streamlining, so that the tags can be removed. Cutting that mess down took a fair bit of work. Thanks. 216.227.50.241 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you explained the reasons you were doing that so ok Jack90s15 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its all good now with that PageJack90s15 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks :) In your defense, removals that big are almost always vandalism. 216.227.50.241 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you should make an account since you are trying to help on wikiJack90s15 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving warnings when reverting

Hi,

When reverting someone's edit, you may want to leave them a note to say why you reverted them. Thanks ~ RhinosF1^{(chat - live)}/_(contribs) 21:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip been doing ones that are disruptive editing/vandalizing and are not here to help build the wiki - Jack90s15 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vandal work!

Hello Jack! As a fellow vandal fighter I just wanted to say thank you for all of your help. While I am still learning myself, I have found that using Twinkle allows for much easier and faster reverts. You can activate it in your profile settings. Also, when a revert is made, it is a generally a good idea to leave a warning on that offenders talk page so repeat offenders can be blocked sooner. Normally warnings are separated by titling a section with the month and year, and warning templates found here are used. Finally, follow any warning with four tildes (~) to add a signature. Hope this information helps! Evan99m (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Welcome! =

Thank you for the warm welcome and send the links! (Ashokss83 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

Welcome messages

Please stop welcoming new users indiscriminately. Welcoming spammers and vandals and thanking them for their contributions helps no one at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK just wanted to make ever one feel welcome I will look at the page and welcome the ones that look like Legitimate people that want to help with the wikiJack90s15 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, not everyone is welcome. You need to actually review the edits made and ensure that the edits are constructive and the standard template applies. If you intend on continuing to welcome editors, please do so on a case by case basis and review the instructions at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 30 April 2019 (UT

Ok I will read over that and follow the instructions they have ThanksJack90s15 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tower running

IP is removing unsourced content. This is not vandalism. Do not tag such edits. Do not report such IPs to WP:AIV. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK if the ip is just removing stuff that has sources or most of the page then I will stop them and tag the there pageJack90s15 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undone revision to Eastern Front

I understand why you undid my edit on Eastern Front but could it be structured like the Western Front Personnel? JoshRamirez29 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is they both show the key players and the size at the frontJack90s15 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok then i see how it should be structure.also how do you have those boxes on your user page

for the eastern front page its fine the way it is it shows everything,the numbers in the info box are citing a historians book David Glantz 'When Titans Clashed. And for the sources that were put appear to be original research and the other one is Wikipedia article as a citation.

and for the users boxes you go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes and put them on your page with source edit the 2 link talks about them

Having a Wikipedia article as a citation is not ok it has to be from a source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Jack90s15 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STEM School Highlands Ranch revert

Hi there. Sadly there was a shooting there today. Someone on the Denver subreddit pointed out the edit that you reverted on April 29th. Do you think it is worth passing that edit along to anyone? Thanks, Beach drifter (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting multiple during that time I really don't know who I can report that to?

if you said it was on Reddit ?

it must be known?

I can contact the authorities

I will call fbi when I get home

Someone on reddit has reported it, not sure exactly to who. Beach drifter (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then law enforcement/FBI will have ip info for that edit if it was on Reddit before you massaged me

@Beach drifter:

KVDR has contacted the authorities on that IP's comment (not your revert). starship .paint (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beach drifter: informing you also ^ starship .paint (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Letting me know what was happening with it law enforcement will handle it with the informationJack90s15 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Why did you undid without explaining at Gazi Pir. Do you have ownership there.

I was undoing disruptive editing/vandalism and I came across it and it was also undone by someone else Jack90s15 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read...

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially the section Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content. Also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, you need to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, because the text you copied was a direct copy of the sentences, but your method of trying to attribute the information was ... not useful. The section Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution is particularly important and needs to be adhered to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not citations. Please self-revert your reverts - because you are still copying text without attribution between wikipedia articles and you're still not providing proper citations - the citations in the ref tags you're giving are to a wikipedia article's footnote which ... as I pointed out the relevant policies/guidelines above, need to be fixed. You need to try to start learning and reading edit summaries when you are reverted, not just putting the information back without fixing the problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I will undo it and put the attribution the right wayJack90s15 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, FIRST ... learn to indent replies properly. I pointed this out above, but here I'm going to try again. You replied to my comments ... so you should count the number of colons the post you are replying to uses in at the beginning (in this case, two colons), ADD ONE to that number (thus making three colons), and then ADD THAT NUMBER OF COLONS in front of your post. Thus, your reply should have been

:::ok I will undo it...

Doing this will keep other editors from being very very annoyed at you. You've been here long enough that you need to master this - not even attempting to conform to the talk page guidelines is going to really annoy other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me how I did it wrong that is why I am saying with the undoing the unnstructive/vandal edits for the most part I am starting to get the hang of thisJack90s15 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

did I get it right I put the colons after my comments?,I was following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Indentation Jack90s15 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page indentation...

Please read Help:Talk pages#Indentation and try to follow it every time you edit talk pages. You've been here a while, it would greatly help your fellow editors if you would start trying to conform to the various conventions of Wikipedia editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that I will book mark that for the next time I use the talk pageJack90s15 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vice/assistant principals

Please be aware that per the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_26#Request_for_comments:_What_administrators_to_list_on_school_articles, we are only including principals and superintendents in school articles, not vice/assistant principals as was done here. If you have questions about this, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I had come across articles that had Vice/assistant principals that were not updated so I was putting the current ones in. But since you showed me this if I come across one that have vice/assistant principals that were there before I got to the page. put the principal and superintendent in school article? and undo the vice/assistant principals Jack90s15 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'd just do as I've done; example. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do and will add superintendent if I can find source for themJack90s15 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Holocaust' in Hebrew and Yiddish

Ok once you guys reach a consensus, feel free to add this to the opening yourself:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה‎‎) or the Hurban (Yiddish: חורבן)

If you read the Wikipedia in other languages, they do this as well: including the Hebrew and Yiddish terms in the beginning. It seems appropriate.

I don't mind it just wanted to get the opinion of other editors, for its inclusion some may say its not needed so just wanted to see what the consensus will be for it. Jack90s15 (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Edit

I am an employee of a Holocaust museum, 11 million is the total of both Jews and non Jews AmberEG1215 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they do not use that the sources that are used on Wikipedia are from them,and they do not use that figureJack90s15 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello Jack90s15 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Welcome!

Thank you for the warm welcome and send the links!
(Ashokss83 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

A kitten for you!

ture bro

i love my truck 15:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Jack90s15! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:10, Wednesday, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Annihilation of the Otomi of Tecoac

Would you please stop blanking the page? There's hardly anything more useless or confusing than a page in article space that has absolutely no content but is still a searchable term. At this point, the two options are a) keeping a redirect, or b) deleting the page. For the latter, nominate it for deletion at WP:RfD. In any case, leaving an empty page is not one of the options. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just saw what you said I will ask for it to be deleted since it was made by a banned user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing,_good_or_bad Jack90s15 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically incorrect sentence in lead of World War II casualties

Hi there! You recently reverted an edit I made to a sentence in the lead of World War II casualties. The original sentence (now restored) is "Deaths directly caused by the war military and civilians killed are estimated at 50–56 million people, there were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine." This sentence is not grammatically correct in numerous ways (it seems to have been written by a non-native speaker of English, or has been accidentally truncated). For example, what is "the war military"? This is not a valid English phrase. As structured, the sentence refers to deaths directly caused by "the war military" but then switches to "and civilians killed," as if two disjoint sentences were oddly combined. I attempted to alter it as little as possible, leaving it almost entirely intact. I'm definitely open to other options, but it's unequivocally clear that the sentence needs to be altered in order to conform to basic rules of grammar in accord with WP:MOS. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilians killed) are estimated at 50–56 million people, while there were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. if the war-related disease and famine deaths are from the war shouldn't the opening be trimmed a bit since the chart shows a breakdown of the deaths?Jack90s15 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your post in the Talk, it seems that these were originally two sentences. I suggest splitting them up again, perhaps as follows: "Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilians killed) are estimated at 50–56 million people. There were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine." Reasonable that the lead offers a brief summary of what's in the charts. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I agree with it now after looking over it and in the opening it says tables? its one Big chart I think that should be switched to chart do you?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D vs E

Death Camps verses Extermination camp.....we have talked about this alot and it's why the article is called what it is. Extermination camp gives the impression they were actively killing people as a routine measure..... where death camp kind of sounds like they're just put somewhere to starve to death. --Moxy 🍁 17:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK the reason why I did that was since Auschwitz was a camp-Complex I put Auschwitz-Birkenau where the Extermination by gas took place,then it was undone So was thinking of a another way to acknowledge how it was a camp Complex.In the first paragraph now Since the paragraph was rewritten a bit I think it can fit Back in this is what it would look like.

(The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through labour in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in Nazi Extermination camps in occupied Poland: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka). scholarly Institutes do refer to it as Auschwitz-Birkenau where the gas Extermination happened do you think it can Fit putting Auschwitz-Birkenau in?Jack90s15 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-ii/ https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/killing-centers-an-overview https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/final-solution/auschwitz.html

Wonderfully POV but the fact you have to hyperlink... should indicate it's not the norm used here as outlined above.[[Extermination camp|death camps]].extermination centers (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Kulmhof, Majdanek).--Moxy 🍁 22:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would your suggestion be with this for the first paragraph for acknowledging how it was a camp complex? Since that is how yad vashem,USHMM,and the Auschwitz web site state it as if you don't think its needed then ok I thought it would help the reader want to research more about AuschwitzJack90s15 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Moxy[reply]

Tonedeff

Hello, Jack90s15,

There were some very serious allegations made against this artist, but there were no sources at all! This information in the edit might very well be true but we can't publish serious charges like this against a living person without better sourcing. If you see someone remove badly sourced accusations against a living person, please don't revert them. If you believe they are true, find some good sources for these claims. Otherwise, I encourage you also to remove poorly sourced allegations when you see them, too. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it now if whoever removes content from a living person that has no sources at all let be and remove any I see .But if some one removes content from a page that is properly sourced revert itJack90s15 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!Jack90s15 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-ration

Thank you for adding the needed references to this article, Jack. However, the article remains contradictory and confusing: in a couple of earlier places, it says that the K-rations did NOT provide enough daily calories for hard-working fighting men, and that some were even found to be suffering from malnutrition and muscle loss when they finally got seen by medics. Now I am no doctor, but how can this be true if they were getting over 8000 calories per day?? Something is very wrong here. Since you obviously care a lot about this article, would you like to attempt a further rewriting of it? Textorus (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TextorusOK I redid some of it and for the calories it is approximately 2,830 calories for the 3 meals that make up the K ration (Breakfast, Supper, Dinner) http://www.90thidpg.us/Paperwork/Research/Misc/QMC%2017-3.pdf on page 9 from the US ArmyJack90s15 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Jack.Textorus (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet casualties

Here are the sources:

1-Krivosheev who puts POWs and missing at 1.783 million. See page 121

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/SovietLosses.pdf

2-Historian Viktor Zemskov who puts POW and missing at 3.9 million.

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/analit01.php

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/analit04.php

Jack you can use Google Translate, it does a nice job. ,

Ложная статистика приведена и во «Всероссийской Книге Памяти» - якобы таких жертв было 2164313 человек19. «Точность» этой цифры не должна вводить в заблуждение - это для отвода глаз. Вся эта «статистика» ни в каких документах не фигурирует и целиком является плодом авторских фантазий.

False statistics are also given in the“ All-Russian Book of Memory ”- allegedly there were 2164313 such victims. The "accuracy" of this figure should not be misleading - this is a blind. All this "statistics" does not appear in any documents and is entirely the fruit of the authors fantasies.

If you have the time, by using Google translate Zemskov explains why Krivoshev is not correct. Do the math 1.783 million in Krivoshev plus 2.164 million civilian "forced laborers" equals 3.947 million POWs and missing in action.

Jack with regard to Polish losses the Soviets and Polish include the annexed territories[[6]]

Let me know if you have further questions. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack with regard to Polish losses the Soviets and Polish include the annexed territories [[7]] in their population base used to compute losses. The detailed schedules of Soviet losses by the individual districts include the annexed regions of Poland. The Polish population base of 35 million includes these annexed provinces. There was a duplication of losses. Both sides are being cute and don't explain the duplication.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you translate Viktor Zemskov using Google you will see that those Polish who left the annexed territories during the war (forced labor in Germany and unrecorded emigration) are included with Soviet losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional details per Zemeskov [8]

Tаким образом, в зарубежной научной литературе оценка смертности советских военнопленных в 3,7 млн. человек представляется наиболее убедительной и приемлемой. Подчеркну, что именно такое количество умерло в плену. Установленные мною 3,9 млн. человек включают в себя все без исключения категории военнопленных, в том числе погибших коллаборационистов (ориентировочно 200 тыс.), в частях вермахта, армии Власова и прочих изменнических (воинских и полицейских) формированиях.

Thus, in the foreign scientific literature, an estimate of the mortality of Soviet prisoners of war of 3.7 million people seems the most convincing and acceptable. I emphasize that just such a number died in captivity. The 3.9 million people that I installed include all categories of prisoners of war without exception, including the dead collaborators (approximately 200 thousand), in the units of the Wehrmacht, the Vlasov army and other traitorous (military and police) formations.

I am not saying he is right or wrong, however he is a reliable source--Woogie10w (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack you may wonder where does this 2.164 million come from? It is boilerplate in Russia today, I copied this from the 2nd edition of Krivosheev

Сведения о числе жертв среди гражданского населения СССР в период оккупации

Information about the number of victims among the civilian population of the USSR during the occupation

Методы истребления

Extermination methods

Число жертв

Number of Victims

Преднамеренно истреблено

Intentionally exterminated 7,420,379

Погибло на принудительных работах в Германии

Killed by forced labor in Germany 2,164,313

Погибло от преднамеренно жестоких условий оккупационного режима (голод, инфекционные болезни, отсутствие медицинской помощи и т.п.)

Died from the deliberately cruel conditions of the occupation regime (hunger, infectious diseases, lack of medical care, etc.) 4,100,00

Итого Total 13,684,692

I hope this will answer your question--Woogie10w (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)"forced labor[reply]

Woogie10w Ok what I get from this is that the other 2 million Pows are part of the (Killed by forced labor in Germany),as you Showed me. And The only thing wrong with Krivosheev's analysis is he does not have them in it but when you add the two together you get the 3 million Pows that were killed do I have it right?Jack90s15 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, that is wrong. Source Krivosheev puts POWS and missing at 1.783 million, source Zemeskov puts POWs at 3.9 million. Also Zemeskov believes the 2.164 listed as forced labor in Germnany should be included with POWs and missing. Do the math 1.783 million in Krivoshev plus 2.164 million civilian "forced laborers" equals 3.947 million POWs and missing in action. The key point is that Krivosheev maintains that the c.2 million were civilians because they were not in the forces in the field. He is telling us that they were called up but killed or captured before they were inducted.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woogie10w I get it now recently I got the book Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century from amazon. And on page 236 he does say how the bigger number for pows includes other people that were taken as prisoners of war.So for Krivoshev he only has people in the Red army at the time that were killed as Pows, and for the 2 million number that makes up the others that were captured as pows?

And I just was wondering on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war page for when it talks about Krivosheev it says at the end of it. According to Krivosheev the higher figure of 3.3 mil lion POW dead includes reservists not on active strength, civilians and military personnel reported missing who were recovered during the course of the war. recovered? does that like mean they recovered the bodies of the dead?Jack90s15 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I am so glad that you purchased the Krivoshev book. Now we are on the same page. No they did not recover the bodies, the figure of 3.0-3.3 million is derived from German figures of POWs captured. Per German records 5.269 million less 2.015 million released equals 3.254 million dead. However 212,400 were deserters in German service, so that the actual POW loss using German records is 3.042 million, not including the missing. This is a tricky point because this is not explained in published historical literature in the west. Zemesekov is in the ballpark when he puts the figure at 3.9 million, including 200,000 deserters in German service. Back in 1946 Soviet internal documents put POW losses at 3.912 million, I assume it includes the missing. Also the schedules the for Army groups in Krivosheev on pages(164-207) list 4.452 million reported POWs and missing. In the 1993 edition Krivosheev puts the released POWs at 1.836 million. However in the revised 2001 edition [9] on page 463 he tells us the released POWS/MIA were 2.329 million. The difference 314,500 is more than likely deserters and those recovered during the war. 4.452 million less 2.329 million equals 2.1 million POWs and missing supported by the details on pages(164-207). Also Jack notice on page 85 the actual demographic loss is 8.668 million plus 500,000 which equals 9.168 million. On page 85 we have 6.329,600+555,000 killed, +2.1 million POWS and MIA, +180,000 POWS remaining in the west (on page 463 - 2001 Ed) gives us Krivoshee'vs figure of 9.168 million. Jack you can see that Krivoshev's figure of 2.1 million is supported by his detailed schedules for the Army groups. The balance of 2 million POWs/MIA are considered civilians in Russia--Woogie10w (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I am a retired accountant, I only edit the casualty numbers on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my sandbox [10] This is my own estimate that I don't post to Wikipedia. I hope this clears up the confusion created by Krivosheev--Woogie10w (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack90s15, there is the article authored by Maksudov and Ellman, where they analyse this issue, and they conclude that the Soviet sources didn't consider the conscripts who, during the first months of German invasion, came to voenkomats, but had been captured by Germans before they arrived to their units as military personnel. According to them, they were civilians. In contrast, the German sources consider them POVs. Accordingly, in Soviet sources, military losses are smaller, and civilian are bigger, but that does not affect the overall figure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Woogie10w I get it now at first looking at soviet casualties it was a bit Confusion Since you get like 20 different answers for estimates but after you explaining it to me and showing me the source material I understand the methodology.And Paul Siebert and thank you for telling me about the paper to!Jack90s15 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I am glad to see that you are here on Wikipedia. We need to use reliable sources and understand the methodology. Drop me a line if you have questions re:casualties.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Woogie10w Thanks for showing me this information about World War II!!!Jack90s15 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Bell

Hi, I've contributed recently to the Glen Bell article. I'm surprised you've nominated it for Good article status, because it is a very long way from meeting the good article criteria. Specifically it fails the following GA criteria:

Well-written - it does not follow the Manual of Style guidelines adequately
Broad in its coverage - it is a long way from providing coverage of the main topics of the subject
Well-illustrated - it has one low quality photo.

I suspect the GA nomination will be immediately failed. I would recommend withdrawing it until substantial further work has been done on the article. Best, Railfan23 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks for telling me First time trying to do GAJack90s15 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent GA nominations

Jack90s15, you've recently made a significant number of GA nominations, and based on the last three articles nominated, I think you don't sufficiently understand the Good Article criteria. You've already withdrawn (Glen Bell), and it and two others seem far from ready:

New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education is labeled a Stub, which is the lowest ranking for an article: they are typically very short and far from the quality needed for a GA. This looks like a stub to me, and would be immediately failed if a reviewer were to take it up.
K-ration is a more substantial article, but has a number of basic grammatical mistakes in it (including the end of the opening paragraph), plus major sections are not cited (including much of the Packaging and Menu sections). This article needs significant work before it is ready.

I would like to suggest that you withdraw both of these as well.

I am less sure about the two Stalin-era nominations, though when you ask for input as someone who hasn't been a significant editor to the article, it's typical to wait seven days to allow for a range of contributors to respond, not to go ahead later than same day after the first response as you did with one of them. Best of luck with those. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the two the death toll for Stalin was worked on by me and about three other editors, and for the other one the other person Significantly contributed to it.Jack90s15 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Anupam^Talk 00:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

Hi Jack90s15! I think the edit your reverted may have simply been an editor trying to trim the plot to a reasonable size, which is appropriate. Removal of content is, to me, one of the most difficult to determine from a vandalism/disruption perspective and I have gotten my hands slapped, rightfully, by editors. No need to justify your actions to me; just thought I would pass on lessons learned. :) S0091 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input they were not descriptive in why they removed it that is why I undid itJack90s15 (User talk:Jack90s15#topRtalk) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's frustrating when editors (IP or registered) do not leave an edit summary when they make major changes because you just have guess sometimes. If they are removing unsourced content, I leave them alone (especially if its a BLP). Overall, it is experience and judgement. I am still new here too. I should have made it clear before, you were AGF. Thanks for the response! S0091 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that is true that is why if I come across a Blp, and some things are not soured and someone removes something. I'm Kind of like okay but if someone removes the entire page something like that I'm like hey that's wrong!!Jack90s15 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

Hi Jack90s15! I think the edit your reverted may have simply been an editor trying to trim the plot to a reasonable size, which is appropriate. Removal of content is, to me, one of the most difficult to determine from a vandalism/disruption perspective and I have gotten my hands slapped, rightfully, by editors. No need to justify your actions to me; just thought I would pass on lessons learned. :) S0091 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input they were not descriptive in why they removed it that is why I undid itJack90s15 (User talk:Jack90s15#topRtalk) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's frustrating when editors (IP or registered) do not leave an edit summary when they make major changes because you just have guess sometimes. If they are removing unsourced content, I leave them alone (especially if its a BLP). Overall, it is experience and judgement. I am still new here too. I should have made it clear before, you were AGF. Thanks for the response! S0091 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that is true that is why if I come across a Blp, and some things are not soured and someone removes something. I'm Kind of like okay but if someone removes the entire page something like that I'm like hey that's wrong!!Jack90s15 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin‎

Your recent editing history at Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Railfan23 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

A quick note that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was the wrong place to post your request. For future reference, you want to post requests like this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See the instruction at the top of the Administrator's noticeboard that says: It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Good luck, Railfan23 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about CVA?

Hi Jack90s15, I saw your note on your user page and I think it is fantastic you are looking for help. Have you checked out the Counter vandalism academy? See [11] for a list of available trainers. S0091 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091 I have seen it Right now I am looking for Somebody to help and guide me through Wikipedia to help me with like making pages and uploading pictures the right way and making sure my edits wouldn't be disruptive or get people madJack90s15 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Best of luck, Jack! :) S0091 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S0091 Thanks!! I hope I find some one I am ready for Wikipedia adoption!!! So I can be a better Member of the community Jack90s15 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute?

Sorry Jack I don't understand.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woogie10w I had a Dispute and I asked you and two others for input the user Thought. I was trying to do it to gain a Edge but it was only For input not trying to make it go in any way but only to gain input.

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: Are you sure you have that quite right? As far as I can see, Jack90s15 has made a total of one revert -- the way Wikipedia counts them -- on that article, ever! (Actually maybe zero reverts if one is an expert in revert policy.) And two in 24 hours on the other one. Have I missed something?

Jack, for obvious reasons I suggest you don't revert any further on either article. MPS1992 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, why is that article still listed as a Stub when it's a huge mass of blocks of text? Jack, if you have time maybe you could have a look on the talk page and see if you can update its rating so that it shows as Start class. MPS1992 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I am Discussing this on the talk page with someone to come up with a compromise and I am supporting there compromise they Suggested to me. and I never did a revert on the second page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc&action=history and I don't know how to that the right way yetJack90s15 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jack, it is good that you are discussing it on the talk page.

I agree that you never reverted on the Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc article. The link you just gave works fine. The wikicode for formatting it slightly more prettily is something like this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc&action=history the edit history of the article Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc]

which is basically an external link, and appears on talk pages and Wikipedia articles something like this:

the edit history of the article Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc

There is also an even better way of doing it, which is not an external link, but I keep forgetting how to do it. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: OK and yea after A few oops I am agreeing with what the other person suggested for their compromise. I am just waiting to hear back from them how it would look.

Some friendly guidance

I understand your frustration with the line about 12-20 million - these estimates arising from exactly 0 historians and from nobody with any special knowledge of the Soviet Union is not something that meets Wikipedia's standards. But the way you edited the line could be seen as falling under WP:WEASEL - I've revised your edit by reviewing and discarding the sources which fail validation under WP:FRINGE (a policy I recommend you familiarize yourself with if you're going to do work in this arena) and attributing to the remaining source the estimate that remains. Having reviewed Nelson on Google Scholar [12] he definitely constitutes the sort of academic who is considered a top-tier source by Wikipedia, as such, his opinion is WP:DUE inclusion, but with the caviat that as he is operating outside his area of academic focus, it's also WP:DUE to mention that he's not an historian. It's painstaking work removing fringe opinions, especially fringe opinions on the Soviet Union, where the is so much disinformation that still constitutes reliable sources within Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. But step 1 is to learn to identify reliable sources and to review sources used to support a statement prior to making revisions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, I got pinged to a discussion you were having about a source. Considering the source in question "CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: A GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT", it dose not fall under WP:FRINGE at all because source is academic and the author is a co-author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2001) and co-editor of the Atlas of Global Christianity (Edinburgh University Press, 2009) which carried similar numbers. Also he has numerous other academic publications [13]. It is not a random source from a random person on a random site. It is one of the top encyclopedists on Christianity and Christians topics. He even has a database from Brill (an academic publisher) [14] that he extracted from to make the conference paper. He is an editor of that academic database [15] - click under "Citations". So it certainly is a reliable source and WP:DUE. On top of that the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2001) which he extracted from for the presentation, carries similar numbers and is also a reliable source. Probably can cite that encyclopedia too...

If you have any questions bring it up on the talk page rather than leaving notes on editors user pages in the future. You keep on writing in too many different places and it gets confusing. Talk pages are a good place to discuss any issues and everyone can have transparent conversations to make changes to an article.

Keep in mind that conversations on user pages are not really valid for making changes on the articles because these are private and can only seek advice. The talk pages are the place to discuss actual changes to an article.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramos1990I don't have problem with it I was trying to Explain how we reached a consensus on the wording that was accidental that I pinged you with that my bad on that. what happened Was they messaged me about it and like I said I Don't have a problem with it we reached consensus.Jack90s15 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content Clarifications

Hello Jack,

Thanks for getting back to me and providing feedback.

I removed the content from the demographics section of the Wurzburg page because I believe the "foreign nationals" statistics were not particularly relevant to the page as a whole, and distracted from more conducive topics on the page, like the culture, economy, etc. As interesting as some might find said statistics, I believe they are more relevant to bigger cities in Germany, while not as important to smaller cities like Wurzburg. Thus I believe that content doesn't need to stay up there. I'll be sure to make better use of the Sandbox as well.

Best, 71.82.237.58 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Wiscipidier[reply]

Lake Calhoun

why do you keep undoing my edits on the page? the page is wrong as the changes to the name has not been decided yet so as it stands right now the lake is still called lake calhoun in the state of minnesota until the supreme court says otherwise so please stop lying to people

Adoption

Hello, Jack90s15,

I saw your post at Drmies talk page and I just wanted to refer you to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. You might find some helpful information there.

To be honest, there was much more adoption of new users that occurred ten years ago and it is not done much any more. But perhaps you can find some resources on this page that can help. I know when I started editing regularly, I posted all of my questions at the Teahouse which had just been started. I think many of us have a rough start when we begin to edit, there is definitely a learning curve to learning how to edit here, it is not intuitive. It never hurts to ask questions first, before editing, and also realize that some long-term editors are actually nice people, it's just been a long time since they were beginners. But criticism is about the edit and the article, it isn't personal and it doesn't mean you can't become a productive editor. It just doesn't happen overnight. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heyy :Liz Thanks for giving me some Insight on this I appreciate it!!Jack90s15 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally adopted you now. By the way, I know that your page said that you are mostly interested in the biographies of American aces, but please do consider checking out the Soviet Aviation Task Force page. There is a lot of "low-hanging-fruit", ie, articles that need to be written that have almost zero risk of being flagged for notability problems, since so much Soviet aviation stuff has only been recently declassified only a tiny fraction of the notable stuff has made it to English Wikipedia. I also have quite a few rare book sources that can help some research in that area, so if you need info for an article I might be able to help.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of George L. Wrenn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on George L. Wrenn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax

Just wondering, is your syntax off because English is not your first language, or are you one of the younger editors? Neither is wrong, but you should be aware that your writing does sometimes confuse people.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: In real life I am not young but for editing and things like that yes I am in terms of doing it,that is was I asked to be adopted. So I can do good on Wikipedia and so I don't get people mad or confused, if I write something that does not make Since you can tell me.Jack90s15 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concow, California

Hi, I undid partially what 40.133.174.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed, however I don't think the full pot history was needed there :). The link that triggered the blacklist is a forum (city-data.com). -- Luk ^talk 08:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with that @PlanespotterA320:!!!Jack90s15 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Vietnam

How was the edit "not constructive"? The states mentioned have a capitalist system, as opposed to a communist system -- the categories have to be equal, i.e. either geographical (Eastern vs. western) or political (communist vs capitalist). australia is a southeastern country / continent, by the way, not western. i'll correct the revert, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:6400:9900:C8D1:9884:F1C5:B260 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks showing me what you were going to doJack90s15 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update @Malcolmxl5: @Liz: @Oshwah: @LightandDark2000: @Path slopu: @PlanespotterA320: I called my provider witch is Comcast, and a nice girl was able to help me tremendously with setting up the password So no one well have access to it but me Jack90s15 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems like I can still edit on my phone I just hope this works out Jack90s15 (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I still can edit on my phone not good editing on phone but I am learning

Good morning! It’s possible you are caught up in a range block or auto block. What message are you getting when you try to edit? Email me if you prefer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Malcolmxl5: I don't know what your email is what I am getting is,

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from ‪2601:81:C480:2527:0:0:0:0/64‬ has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Malcolmxl5‬ for the following reason(s):Disruptive editing: Vandalism.

I was caught of guard with all of this since I reported the vandalism of three pages, I did get a password for my WiFi so no one can use it only me Jack90s15 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’m looking into it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. You made a request for page protection for World War II casualties of the Soviet Union at 21:34 (UTC) and in response, I range blocked 2601:81:C480:2527:0:0:0:0/64 for one month. As you say you have secured your wifi with a password, I’ll lift the block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some grammar and formatting feedback

Hi Jack, here are some changes you could make to User:Jack90s15/sandbox. Also useful rules for English language text generally...

Try not to start sentences with a conjunction (e.g. "and").
Spaces always come after punctuation or references.
Don't separate sentences with commas -- this is known as a comma splice.
Don't use upper case letters for words other than names and proper nouns, except when starting a sentence. For example, combat, plane, shoot, before, and considered, should all start with lower case letters in the context you're using them.
Zero is a proper noun in this context, so it should have an upper case letter. It's also worth wikilinking it to Mitsubishi A6M Zero.
You need a new sentence for "he was rescued by..."
"his plane got hit and so did he" sounds rather informal. It may be worth phrasing as "he was wounded and his plane was damaged".
It would be good to mention what aircraft he was flying when this happened, if the sources mention it.

Hope this is useful. MPS1992 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: It is thank you I will fix things you said that had to be.

Hello Jack, you still seem to have some problems at the new User:Jack90s15/sandbox? See point 4 above. MPS1992 (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Currently missing at least one full stop as well. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: Thanks for showing me that just start working on it so will make changes to it here and there Jack90s15 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Have you given up on Draft:Gregory Joseph Weissenberger? Some more still to fix on that one. MPS1992 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: No my Adopter went over it briefly and that is why I submitted it Jack90s15 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to fix it, though? MPS1992 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: for the first one or the new one? for the first what needs to be fixed?Jack90s15 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Weissenberger, points 4 and 5 still at least partly unresolved. And have you considered points 7 and 8 ? And, are you sure that he was rescued before he had to bail out? How would that work? MPS1992 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: OK I redid it a bit and started a new sentence with the rescue part Jack90s15 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gregory_Joseph_Weissenberger Jack90s15 (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Looks a lot better. MPS1992 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MPS1992: I appreciate the help!!! Jack90s15 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas

And I was looking for a recording studio ~ Thanks for your edit here ~ by the way ~ nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs: I am glad you found what you are looking for!Jack90s15 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HC socks

Just a tip: if you think you've got a HarveyCarter sock, best think to do is drop a note on Favonian's user talk page - if it's HC, he'll recognize it immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: OK I will tip him off when HarveyCarter tries to editJack90s15 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jack90s15! You created a thread called Admins at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mobileUndo

Hello, recently FR30799386 was blocked for sock puppetry. The left behind few of their scripts. DannyS712 has copied the scripts, and has taken over maintaining them. It appears that you currently importing an outdated version of import FR30799386's mobileUndo, and I thought that you might want to import an updated and maintained version. The outdated version you are currently importing has some bugs. Those bugs have been fixed by the original creator and DannyS712 synced their version of the script with it. Also FR is currently rewritting and updating this script on meta-wiki per this advice as well as adding new features. Please copy one of the following codes and replace it with the code you currently have in your Special:MyPage/minerva.js or Special:MyPage/common.js to import this script. Thank you. Masum Reza^📞 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyS712/Undo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

– Stable version

```
mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FR30799386/undo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
```
– Beta version - Major UI improvements - ~~Might has some bugs.~~ Please help by sending bug reports to meta:User_talk:FR30799386 if you find any.

Thank you for telling me this when I get back to my desktop I will try to implement it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

@FR30799386: I am not really good with the Tech stuff I get this from one of the anti-vandal tool pages some time ago and just copied and pasted it in to what it it told me to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

Oh sorry. I haven't looked at your reply. As I said, you are importing an outdated version, please update the code. Masum Reza^📞 22:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK

Jack you are new to Wikipedia, to don't have to be sorry. I pointed this out to you as a friend because there are some people who look for reasons to block other editors. They know all the rules and will rat out people who break these rules. If you want to do heavy editing I recommend familiarizing yourself with the Wikipedia rules. I try to avoid these petty Wikipedia wars. Right now I am reading The Darkest Days of the War: The Battles of Iuka and Corinth[16]I am proud to say that my great grandfather served three years 1862-65 in the 107th Ohio Infantry. He was wounded at Gettysburg and returned to his unit three months later. My GGG grandfather served from 1788-80 in the 13th Virginia Regiment, he was buried in Ohio in 1820. My father was a replacement tank driver in the Ninth United States Army from June 1944 until the end of the war. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w: I really appreciate the information you gave me and that's a really interesting family history, from the start of America to World War II.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kind reminder :)

Hi, please keep WP:3RR in mind. It may ~~apply~~ have applied here. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC) (correction ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Jack, ToBeFree is right. Sometimes there are lots of reasons to think that reverting more than once is a good idea. But, it is much easier to just not do it. Remember, if there are lots of reasons to revert more than once, then someone else will soon do it for you. So all you need to do is wait. A day or two, maybe. MPS1992 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you guys for the input the ip was trying to pov push and was Removing source material like,

[National University of Singapore]], acknowledges that there was a cross exchange of technological ideas between Europe and China, but ultimately classifies Menzies' book as historical fiction and asserts that there is "absolutely no Chinese evidence" for a maritime venture to Italy in 1434

Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=2600%3A1011%3AB004%3A1D90%3A7C9B%3AB7CC%3A547C%3AB8D8

@ToBeFree: @MPS1992: that is why I reverted the IP and then 2 time they tried to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Menzies&diff=907739921&oldid=907739695 Jack90s15 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack90s15, no worries. I disagree that this is "vandalism", though. Your last reverts have been justified by the "blocked user" exemption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: OK again thanks for the input I really appreciate it when experienced users give there input on something like this So I can Learn from the experienceJack90s15 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: @MPS1992: Now this would be a exemption Since the person was trying to blink the whole page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Dean&action=history

Jack I just looked at that Ip~ looks like an admin block for 31 hours ~mitch~ (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok then looks like that is then @Mitchellhobbs:Jack90s15 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions to 3RR rule

(Not sure if we mean exemptions or if we mean exceptions, but anyway...)

An interesting question, if someone is blanking an entire article, is that always vandalism?

This is not policy, it's only an essay -- so it can't specify exemptions or exceptions to anything, nor can it define what vandalism is -- but it is a very interesting read on the same topic. It needs reading slowly when you have a little time, because it is more of a story than an essay... with some morals of the story... Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. MPS1992 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so help full I do need the help @MPS1992: I did the see the part of it Don't have time to look at all of it right now I Meant exemptions like it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Jack90s15 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an example

Here is a good example! You did exactly the right thing here, well done! Now, if that unregistered editor had reverted you once, twice, three times, four times, four hundred times, would you have carried on reverting them each time? Up to 10RR? Up to 400RR?

Of course I have asked for page protection and eventually that will be arranged, but the question is, should you or I continue to edit war because we know that we are right (covered by exemptions) and the silly person is wrong?

The answer is no, we should not continue, we can do it once or twice and then it is best to wait. MPS1992 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am starting to get it @MPS1992:Jack90s15 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this to get your attention. I updated Mary Jane Watson's summary on List of Spider-Man supporting characters saying that Pete and MJ had gotten back together because if you've READ the past 26 issues written by Nick Spencer, then YOU'D KNOW that.

Edit without enough of a summary

I apologize for not leaving enough of an edit summary. I believe the map of Northern Virginia used for the webpage is incorrect and have tried with out avail to contact the page’s owner. I am not tech savvy enough to create my own map and upload it. So I just deleted the map. Clubkyink (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok @Clubkyink: maybe ask for some help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Jack90s15 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

strange edit

Hi Jack, what did you mean by making this edit? MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When reading over it it sounded better that way @MPS1992:Jack90s15 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that's a big thing. To whom did you read it? MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I read it and re-read it with the new edit it sounded betterJack90s15 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to undo your own edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht&diff=prev&oldid=908160897

@MPS1992: I started on my new article any suggestion so far?Jack90s15 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack90s15/sandbox

What is that comma doing there? MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page?Jack90s15 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack90s15/sandbox

What part of it does? @MPS1992:Jack90s15 (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the first sentence end? MPS1992 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made some Improvements with some help?@MPS1992:Jack90s15 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack90s15/sandbox#References[reply]

Do you remember that comma splice is bad? MPS1992 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: There are no commas splitting the sentences? I have them in the sentences Jack90s15 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[17] look for the comma in the wrong place. Fix it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it? intercepted a force of eight enemy twin-engined bombers

[18] Jack90s15 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: And I give you permission to help me with my sandbox also if see any Grammar Mistakes Since you and my adopter are helping me a lot and I need it Jack90s15 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

I have tried to have a discussion regarding the status of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women as a genocide. I have heard nothing but radio silence on that talk page. The ongoing discussion you referenced has reached a conclusion, though, and it has been oficially recognized as a genocide by the Canadian government.

there is a note on there that is supposed to be followed that if it's recognized in multiple reputable academic literature it could be placed there, and it says,

DO NOT add genocides that clearly do not meet the UN criteria, ie, killing of economic or political groups, or "cultural genocides/ethnocides." Provide sources that demonstrate the genocide is recognized as such by significant mainstream scholarship under the most common definition (the legal definition) of genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll&action=edit Jack90s15 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbjerkec:

I understand, one of my sources [19] explains why it meets the UN definition of genocide, hence the need to have it included.

@Gbjerkec: the note says (Provide sources that demonstrate the genocide is recognized as such by significant mainstream scholarship under the most common definition (the legal definition) of genocide.)notes are on pages for reasons to prevent edit wars and things like that like on this page. with subjects like this

Again, I understand. But the source I provided does explain that Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women does fall under the mainstream definition of genocide.

the other part of the note

(Provide sources that demonstrate the genocide is recognized as such by significant mainstream scholarship)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

In the media: Politics starts getting rough

Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your ongoing and tireless efforts to fight vandalism. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! very much @Chetsford:

Please take note of what you revert

Special:Diff/910742936 had you reverting an IP who removed slanderous BLPvio content from the page. Be careful next time. Nixinova T C 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nixinova: Thanks for the spot I saw it said (removed references) that was the Only reason I reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

Be sure to check the diff when reverting; not all IPs are bad. Nixinova T C 06:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, please be aware that a tag of "(removed references)" is not a sufficient reason to revert. If it were a sufficient reason to revert, then the software would do it without you needing to do anything. You must look at the diff and decide whether the content needs to be reverted.

That reminds me, about two weeks ago I suggested you read and learn from the essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. You said that you didn't have time to read all of it right then. Have you now found time to read all of it? WP:BLP is a very important policy -- it's one that can get people blocked instantly. MPS1992 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: what happened was I did see that the ip did remove a source and that is why I did I should have looked a bit more closer now I know for next timeJack90s15 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you will look at diffs properly before reverting, in future. If you do that, then hopefully you will not get blocked for putting BLP violations back into articles! For making an edit like this, do you understand why some admins would have blocked you immediately? MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: now I do that was the first time something like this happened in this way I will use this as a learning experienceJack90s15 (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is good news. Have you found the time to read thoroughly the essay that I recommended you should read? MPS1992 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I got The scenario part done I am working on the last part of it, and thanks for showing we need some work on that pageJack90s15 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing European theatre of ww2

I don't care if you are a communist or what else. At the allies always UK was the leader. Soviet Union joined them after 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteStarG7 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the "non constructive section".

Hi. I want to know why it was "non constructive". Churchill was the main allied leader of WW2. (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhiteStarG7#Edit_warring

@WhiteStarG7: according to which source? You should mention, and quote, that source on the article talk page so that it can be discussed further. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jack90s15/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

August 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at WP:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Jack90s15 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it @David Biddulph: but I forgot to sign this post because I am too busy rushing to fix Gregory Joseph Weissenberger which I have just mistakenly moved to mainspace while it still has many mistakes

Thank you showing me thatJack90s15 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:PlanespotterA320, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You mistakenly moved the user talk page into mainspace. I reverted your move. Please be more careful in future. David Biddulph (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: My adopter was showing me how to move a page so I was testing it out that Is why I did thatJack90s15 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if at some later time your adopter shows you how to delete a Wikipedia page, and if at that time you have the ability to do so, will you test it out by just deleting some random page? MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that your adopter would agree that you oughtn't to be making that sort of move, even as a test. Note also that a ping won't work unless the ping and the signature are in the same edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: now I know that was a oops on my end Thanks for telling me that was a oops I did Jack90s15 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Gregory J. Weissenberger.

User:Hughesdarren while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Good job, I've done a little copy editing to curate the article through to the main space. It looks like you are a beginner so if yo ever need any help ping me and I'll see what I can do. All the best!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your badge should you choose to use it

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your work on Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

Well done. Szzuk (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions_for_nominators. If this your first nomination, a "quid pro quo" would not be required. If you start the process, I can assist. Please let me know if you have any questions before getting started. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: OK I will nominate it I just help with it Since I am new to things like this.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I did look over it a bit and can you be a co-nominator to? so if there is any questions that they ask. I don't know you could answer them. I would appreciate the assistance Jack90s15 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. You could start the submission in your sandbox, and then we can jointly tweak it before adding to the DYK queue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I started with the hook you can edit my sand Box for anything else needed for itJack90s15 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think about the hook

@K.e.coffman: I manged to get the template into my sandbox you can edit it also so we can get it postedJack90s15 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will look through the article to see if there's anything that looks particularly "hooky" to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the nomination page and it looks to be working. You can now follow the next steps. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite the newbies

Hey there. If you're going to revert new accounts who are trying to add constructive material but doing it in the wrong way, such as this, please consider offering them a more useful and less jargony explanation than "cite needed". You don't need to be as verbose as this, but surely you can do better than two words. We want new editors who want to contribute to want to learn how it's done and stick around, and responses like yours chase people away. Thanks for your consideration. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK not a not a problem if new user does something like that I will say,

(Can you please proved a source so Users will know where the information is from Thank you!) better? @Ivanvector: Jack90s15 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, but what does "proved a source" mean? Did you mean to write something else? MPS1992 (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, assuming you meant "provide a source". Just so you know, the notification system doesn't work unless you put the {{ping}} template in the same edit where you insert ~~~~ to place your signature. If you make a mistake with the template and fix it in a later edit, you have to put in a new signature on that edit or there's no ping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes that is what I meant as in provide a citation, and thanks for the input. Jack90s15

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jack90s15! You created a thread called what does it mean when in someones user Box it has the green dot in it and says helped promote the article to good status? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pudeo (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not changing your comments for no reason. The way you had it was completely unreadable. You couldn't tell where other people's comments end and yours begin. Before reverting me consider if it's worth it. 2001:4898:80E8:8:A39:E920:F861:92CF (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experimenting

Did you know that you can move an entire article to your sandbox and experiment there? This may be a good way to try out formatting or image placement. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what are the steps to do that the right way @K.e.coffman:?Jack90s15 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I copied & pasted Clean Wehrmacht to your sandbox: User:Jack90s15/sandbox. You can experiment there. Once, for example, you like a given change, you can copy the affected code over. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks @K.e.coffman: this will help me with trying to get one pic or to in thereJack90s15 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]