User talk:Truth or consequences-2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Truth or consequences-2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Welcome!

Welcome to my talk page - what else?

Hello

Concerning Vichy, you claim the rules on condominium were illegal because of the Fourth & Fifth Constitution. Perhaps you should read more closely this article from Le Figaro, which clearly states that "condominium rules" still hold discriminatory articles, according to which people who live in this condominium must declare that they are "of French nationality" and "not Jewish" nor have family ties with Jewish "according to the current laws and ordinnances". The Vichy Jewish statute was of course repealed by France after the Liberation, but the rest of the legislation remained. As this specific condominium reglementation has not been contested in court by anybody - in which case it would have most certainly be reversed - it is still in force. Which is exactly the subject of the article. Tazmaniacs (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tazmaniacs, your logic in editing Vichy France is flawed and shows a misunderstanding of French jurisdiction. Rules that contravene the constitution are dead letter, in a civil law system. The argument that the rules are illegal thus stands. Furthermore, the application of the rules is not existent either; Le Figaro, and other sources cited in the article, shows that Jews are able and willing to live in the buildings in question. So, the condo rules plainly have neither legal force nor applicability or application. This information puts in perspective the Nice Matin piece and follow-up press, barely relevant to the focal article though these are, and eliminating it is hardly the way to maintain the article. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entering a philosophical debate, and your appreciation is very subjective. In fact, the rule should be illegal; but, when the Figaro wrote, it was still in force. Again, no one has contested it before a court. You claim that "Jews are able and willing to live in the buildings in question" as an argument for the non-enforcement of the law; this is itself flawed logic, if you don't mind. Jews do live in the buildings, I agree with you; but they still have to sign this paper, which states, for instance, «Les comparants font les déclarations suivantes: 1°) Ils sont de nationalité française, ne sont pas juifs, ni conjoints de juif au sens des lois et ordonnances en vigueur». That the statement is false, and that nobody cares it is false, does nothing to the fact that they do have to sign a paper which forces them to sign this paper. The rule is thus still in force. But I'm sure we could argue on this for hours: this is why I send you back to the article, and nowhere do I see in Le Figaro that it is not in force. Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I left a message on Talk:Vichy France as the subject concerns everyone. Regards, Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tazmaniacs, this is not a philosophical debate on my part, and my edits are not subjective. They are based on, and explicate, the Nice Matin and follow up articles. The concept of "in force" as you use it, or "en vigueur", is not binding legally. For reasons that you agree upon, the rules have no legal standing. In that sense, signing the rules would be a meaningless act. (Incidentally, awareness of the legal system could also explain why some inhabitants may not have bothered to read the rules.) The Nice Matin reporter as cited in Le Figaro also points out that those who knew of the rules considered them obsolete. They are. For that matter, as I pointed out earlier, there is another fallacy in presuming that this item is relevant to the Vichy syndrome, or "views on the nature and legitimacy of Vichy’s collaborationism with Nazi Germany in the implementation of the Holocaust". Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meuse-Argonne

Hey Truth or consequences-2, can you please tell me what source states that the French 4th Army contained 31 divisions at the beginning of the Argonne campaign, if you happen to know it? I have been unable to find anything listing the size of the 4th, and it strikes me as unlikely that a single army would contain 31 divisions, especially since, at least earlier in the war, French field armies seemed to be made up generally of only two corps. I could very well be wrong of course. Thanks! Jrt989 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for instance: http://www.histoiredumonde.net/article.php3?id_article=1852. The original source from that article is generally credible. This concords with whatever source MWadwell had, assuming he had a different (English-language?) one. As for your point about the size of the French 4th Army, I find mentions that it "participated" in the offensive, and presumably it was the major whole French army involved, but other French units did too. For instance, De Gaulle's 1966 speech refers to the 2e Corps d'Armée Colonial, which makes good sense as that corps was also involved at Saint-Mihiel. I don't think that 2CAC would have been part of F4A.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. I don't speak French, so I had to rely on freetranslation.com in order to get the jist of it, but it's certainly interesting to read the French perspective on the battle (and on Pershing). I agree that more French divisions participated than just those with the Fourth Army, but the same can be said of the American divisions, as well. I'm currently compiling an order of battle for the American forces at the Argonne (you can see it here if you wish, though it's still a work in progress), and both the II Colonial Corps and the VII Corps served with the U.S. 2nd Army, adding (according to Pershing's report) 4 French divisions. Four American divisions served in those corps at the same time, as did two others in the XXX and XXXIV French corps, which I presume were in the 4th Army. Jrt989 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you don't mind my asking, are you French?

Hardly, though I speak the language.

Yes, the French top brass took poorly to Pershing's reversals and Liggett's hesitations. At one point, Clemenceau tried to go to the front and was livid when he saw first-hand the AEF traffic jams, the result of these oversized divisions and other planning mistakes given the terrain. There are a couple of nice sources about the interactions between the French and American generals, but as I see it the current article is too limited to start getting into this. There are so many other things that could be mentioned once the article is soundly balanced: The lost battalion, the flu pandemic (timely isn't it?), Patton's introduction to the use of armor, the memorials... Regarding the Pershing report, I presume it would be reliable for identifying U.S. forces and plausibly French forces too, but it bears keeping in mind that Pershing effectively wrote for a relatively uninformed political audience a continent away, so his report can't be taken completely at face value as regards German forces or each country's respective contributions and battle feats. Also, Pershing played loose with the boundaries of the battle when it came to making his claims. Your use of Pershing's report looks fine, but overusing sources such as this for presentation and analysis, as opposed to sheer objective facts, may be one of the things that got the article flagged for U.S. bias.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not using Pershing for anything other than for the order of battle of the American army on September 26 (it would seem unlikely he would lie about that) and for the mention that there were four French divisions involved with Second Army. I would happily use another source for that last part, but information about the II Colonial Corps and the French Fourth Army seems to be sadly lacking (in English at least). My source for the order of battle on November 10 is Richard A. Rinaldi's excellent work "The US Army in World War I - Orders of Battle", which is clearly exhaustively researched. Believe me, I am well aware that sources from the time (American, British, or French) were oftentimes extremely colored by national bias, and I don't intend to get sucked into the viewpoint that the American army somehow won the war. I'm merely interested in making sure that its contribution is not forgotten.

In my reading of the French sources, and also of the few German sources I read, the American role is not forgotten! What may be lacking is quality discussion of the interaction among the parties, but not an awareness that the Americans played an essential role from the Argonne through Sedan, and contributed in this and other important ways to ending the war. It is also understood that the American sources about Meuse-Argonne may be American-focused not only for the normal reasons, but because this was the biggest U.S. engagement of the war and one more "of choice" than that of other Allies. If you ever have the chance, a tour to the battle sites will show how much attention the locals still pay to the memory of the American contribution.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I see that you added Henri Edouard Claudel to the list of commanders. It seems to me that his name should be omitted, since he was only a corps commander. At the same time, I think in keeping with the inclusion of Liggett on that list, it would make sense to include Bullard, as well. Thoughts? Jrt989 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in retrospect regarding Claudel, and I removed him. Claudel had the highest rank available in the French army at the time, and that befit his role in shaping the Colonials, but not necessarily his role in this battle. As for Bullard, I thought he had much less of a role overall than Liggett. Wasn't Liggett involved deeply alongside Pershing even before the split into two U.S. armies? That would seem to be a proper question, as the split occurred roughly half-way through the battle.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, while I think of it: I think the casualty numbers need to be changed if they are going to accurately reflect the French contribution. Everything I've read lists American casualties in the battle as being approx. 117,000, so clearly the number on the page right now cannot be including French loses (unless they were only 8,000 - unlikely). One internet source here lists French casualties as 70,000. However, there's no citation for that info, so I'm not sure how accurate that number is. Do you have any info on this? Jrt989 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an authoritative source, but will keep this in mind. I suggest putting such questions on the article's talk page, though, as others may know. That could also help with the German side, which is now especially poorly documented.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. I didn't post on the article's talk page simply because it seems like you and I are the only people actively editing this article at the moment, so it seemed like a waste of time. As for a tour of the battlefield, I would love to do it if I'm ever in France. Jrt989 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 (Reding controversy preceding her retraction)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viviane Reding. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Triwbe (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. May I ask why you deem this a personal agenda? How can WWII history be irrelevant to the wikipedia entry, given Mrs Reding explicitly brought it up? Why are you ignoring the fact that other wikipedia editors made the very interpretation that this refers specifically to the situation in France during WWII? And, why is the person who actually did the reverts in both cases NOT being called, while I am?Truth or consequences-2 (talk)

Edit war (3) on SNCF

This is apparently your second attempt at an edit war. Please avoid doing this whenever possible, in order to maintain a collaborative atmosphere. JamaUtil (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The juxtaposition between (3) and "second" implies a rather odd sense of reality. Then again, JamaUtil must have a hard time keeping track of how many times he has vandalized and weakened the SNCF page. The basis for my edits is in the talk page. I welcome efforts to improve and expand the article. Thanks!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:Personal attacks, I have left critiques on your sandbox page. Perhaps we should continue discussion there. I appreciate your good faith efforts. JamaUtil (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the logic in the insinuation of attack, or in diverting from best wikipedia practice. Again: The basis for my edits is in the talk page. I welcome efforts to improve and expand the article. Thanks!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New SNCF source

Your source is interesting, but I really can't figure it out. Would you mind translating the key passage(s) that support your sentence? These sentences are currently supported by that source:

The terms of the Armistice provided that all French railroads be turned over to German occupying forces.

If you have other sources you would like to add, maybe try translating the supporting sentences. It seems very strange that source is not used on the French article. Why do you suppose that is? JamaUtil (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already translated the relevant quotations and sections of the sources pertaining to the Armistice and subsequent oversight of the SNCF. The problem is that you removed these very translations. If you reinstate all the material I contributed, the article will be fine and I trust you will be able to make sense of it. Beyond that, I cannot make sense of your request as you just worded it. There is no source cited in your note, but rather a repetition of one older sentence that you chose to keep while deleting everything else in the added context. That sentence in its proper placement did not pertain to the latest source I had included, the Letter... journal (until you removed that entirely too), and said latest source was also appropriately summarized before you deleted it. Notwithstanding your claim, the latest source I used is also used elsewhere in wikipedia, including on the French one. If you lack the expertise to edit articles about French history, please let other editors improve and expand the articles. Also, since the translation of the key material is in the material you removed, based on your own words I see a proof that your wholesale deletions harm the article and even the editors' understanding of it. Reinstate the full context material and the history will make sense. Then, it may make sense to add other translated material, and I will be glad to do so since you lack the skills. Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back to the Paul Kagame article

Thanks for beginning to work on dealing with the neutrality and factual issues on the Paul Kagame article. It's still very unbalanced and really needs work, particularly since this is a bio about a living person. I'm absorbed in Madagascar topics so don't have the chance to work on this myself but I hope you will find some time to return to it. The article really needs you. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Erevelles (2nd nomination)]]

What link dis you use. I have [1] which shows the exact opposite of your results. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same, and it shows just what I stated: No pattern of papers with >1 GS cite per month (12 per year, 120 for a ten-year-old publication, etc.).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I;ll adjust my statement, and Thanks very much for correcting me. However, I think you wrong in your standards. Papers grow less impt to the scientific front as they go older, but for us notability is permanent, and older scientists do not automatically become less notable than younger ones. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in impact with age is relative and operates over longer time frames. The type of journals that would warrant tenure in a business school aim to have cited half-lives (of articles) > 10 years, and many of the best do. So, for a scholar 20 years out such as Sunil Erevelles, time since publication should not be much of a factor. All the publications should be candidates for this level of citations.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cuatro Vientos crash AFD

Your new edit[2] doesn't say whether you support delete, keep, redirect, etc. Maybe you want to clarify it so the administrator will understand when it comes time to close....William 16:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Cyril Mathew. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template was removed as part of vandalism reversion and as discussed on AfD page. Bot does not get these subtleties, I guess.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD repeat

An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to FTAM may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tierp Arena may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damario Ambrose

I know it's way too late but you said that he did play in a AFL game at the time well I got proof that he did play on Saturday June 1, 2013. http://www.arenafan.com/players/Mario_Ambrose-12658/ 71.180.91.32 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He's back! Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AFD re Kamsar Avetisyan

I was just curious why you referred here to [my] "argument for speedy close". I made no such argument, nor did I made ever make any WP:SPEEDYDELETE request. I expected more editors' involvement and participation, and am actually surprised it was closed so quickly. Quis separabit? 14:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was not referring to your statements in that note, but rather to another editor who I believe meant speedy close as a speedy keep (search in the AfD discussion). For that matter, I agreed with you on the decision. I trust this clarifies this. Best, Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right the guy who wanted a speedy administrative closure because he claimed I had not provided a rationale, which I had but which had been misformatted. No problem. I misunderstood you. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne McTaggart Tait, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Children's Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Great Fire of Smyrna. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You've added "This does not explain" - you need a source for that which meets WP:RS as otherwise it is your own observation Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation by Dougweller is mistaken. The facts reported are relevant to the article and do not represent OR or NS. However, sources have been added so WP:RS is met.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand our sourcing policy and what original research means. If you have reliable sources that comment on the different times reported by Grescovich and others you can add that. You can't add your own commentary about others giving different times. If you think I am wrong about my interpretation please go to WP:NOR to ask, but I've got a lot more experience concerning these issues than you do and you might want to take that into account. There are a lot of conflicting reports and you can't add to each section that someone else disagreed, which is the logic of what you've done. Readers should simply be shown what the sources say and allowed to draw their own conclusions, not be given those conclusions by us as editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you are misunderstanding the history, as well as historiography as it is necessary here. The article is about the Great Fire, that which started in the afternoon of 13 September by all accounts (see the Burning section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Smyrna#Burning). The material currently in the article from Grescovich (mind the spelling please) is not about that, but rather about other events that were under his remit prior to that. What then gets inferred from Grescovich is not pertaining to the start of the Great Fire, though it works as innuendo for the less informed. And, the initial text and what you added in the "Grescovich" subsection are fraught with mistakes, including about Grescovich's title, the description of the arsonists he reported seeing, and locations. You are compounding the mistakes of a bad source; compare Voss, Dourmoussis etc. Put another way, the reasonable thing to do, if you don't want context (your attitude then being contrary to historian practice, but that's another issue), would be to remove the "Grescovich" material entirely or to reduce it to what it says about the Great Fire, which is inferential. And then I can see the cheap wikicriticism coming, accusing whoever does this of selective removal. The blind and wiki. And an Administrator throwing gasoline on that fire, metaphorically speaking of course.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Prentiss didn't think it was about the Great Fire? I hadn't noticed the title - I wonder how that got there as it isn't in the source or what other sources such as [3] say. The context is the entire article. If the description and locations are wrong (in the source and thus in the article), you'll need sources saying that Grescovich was wrong. But I did say you can take this to WP:NOR, but the lack of good faith is a bit bothering. If there was actually a unified view on the fire and Grescovich was the odd man out then there would be a problem, but that isn't the case. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that none of the factual material in the "Grescovich" section, even as you edited it (with perhaps one exception which I return to below), has to do with the one great fire that engulfed the city and especially with Armenian (let alone Greek) responsibility as the superheading implies. Furthermore the source cited is three steps removed from the Grescovich report, with inbetween Prentiss who is an unreliable source on the topic, having changed his testimony under political pressure (see elsewhere in the article). The sourcing may be acceptable wikiediting/administering technically, but it is hardly good history, and it double-weighs a weak source. In plain English: The article is getting worse and less balanced with these additions. The one part that might deserve to be kept is that about Turkish forces reacting after 6 pm by destroying houses; which btw can equally be interpreted as evidence of Turkish delaying or plain eagerness to destroy Armenian homes (it's an exclusive or), so it is questionable that this part of the Grescovich report belongs in the section [4]. As for context in general, calling the article the context is ingenious but neither practical as content policy nor scientific; this simply adds up to saying that whoever gate-keeps the article gets it to say what they want. Finally, I am not sure what to make of the NOR/AGF sentence. What do you mean by "I did say you can take this to WP:NOR"? As for good faith, I assumed it, but are you saying I was wrong?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked as though you weren't giving me GF. And I meant WP:NORN of course. The problem as I see it is that it appears to be your interpretation that the fires reported in the late morning and at noon are unrelated to the Great Fire. You would need an independent source discussing this. You can see that I'm not an active editor on the article. Personally it seems unlikely that the fires (presuming they took place) weren't related, but my opinion is as much OR as yours is, so we just report what the sources say. Have you seen this?[5] - not sure if it helps or not - it's linked in the aritcle. Better yet, Lowry's paper is online.[6] Hm, while writing this I've been looking at his paper and he reports Hepburn as saying the first fires were in the forenoon which contradicts our article. I'll take this up on the talk page. I've got no irons in this fire, pun not intended. I really don't care who did what here. I'm just trying to make sure this follows policy and I enjoy research. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We surely don't have an unbiased source in Lowry, writing in the Journal of Ottoman Studies of which he was co-editor about what he pointedly labels "burning of İzmir"; and doing so, as I pointed out, via quotes from Prentiss as twisted by Bristol, not from the original source. Lowry makes some well-taken criticism of Housepian, but oddly ignores other works on the fire, and gives something away when he closes a "history" article with this sycophancy: "The burning of Izmir is only the final page in the struggle of Turks to establish their own national state out of the remnants of the Ottoman empire." That is part of the issue here: Editors who think they are writing about the "Grescovich report" are actually leaning on one of the sides' potentially selective and definitely indirect reporting about it. This gives WP:RS a bit of a bad name. In any case, I'll see what I can use meaningfully. As for the earlier fire(s) versus The Fire, there may well have been previous fires that day, and they may have contributed to limiting the fire brigade's efficiency later (in which case Grescovich would certainly want to mention them as his report is, ultimately, about the failure of the possibly impossible mission of his brigade); but these are not, in any source, to be confused with the conflagration that ended up burning most of the city and that, again in all sources I know of, started in the afternoon. In this respect I don't get your reading of Hepburn. The quote is "a house burning in the Armenian quarter in the forenoon", but the wording separates this from the source(s) near the Intercollegiate Institute from which the Great Fire burned out of control (as indeed Hepburn also reports). I see no logic for conflating the one "house burning", or even others which are reported in some sources, with the Great Fire.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Fire of Smyrna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kaplan-related sockpuppet investigation notice

Hello, you are receiving this notice because you made a contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination), now closed. Subsequent to the closure of the AfD, a related sockpuppet investigation (define) was opened. If you are interested, you can view or contribute to it. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]