User talk:GreenMeansGo

Welcome!

Hello, Timothyjosephwood! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome!

Hello, Timothyjosephwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Border Bowl, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Border Bowl

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.

A tag has been placed on Border Bowl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1890)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1890), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1869). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sullivans

I said that about Sullivan (1869) only because the dates on his article were identical to those on the date of the other. I don't have any further evidence one way or another, but it looked to me that he was the one with the incorrect dates based on internal evidence in the articles as given. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's strange how similar they are sometimes. The Army definitely cites two different Sullivans getting the award for the Indian Campaigns. However, I've literally been able to find nothing on the Kentucky born Sullivan and it seems like a whole heck of a lot of sources confound the two and mix their stories.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historical examples of flanking maneuvers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xerxes (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) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Reduction (military) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Surrender

Relief (military) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Surrender

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations

May I suggest using template:cite web, template:cite journal, and/or template:cite news? A typical implementation:

Existing: <ref>Pillay, N. (2012) Valuing women as autonomous beings: Women's sexual reproductive health rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://www.chr.up.ac.za/images/files/news/news_2012/Navi%20Pillay%20Lecture%2015%20May%202012.pdf </ref>

With cite web: (formatted for easier reading)

<ref>{{cite journal

|url= http://www.chr.up.ac.za/images/files/news/news_2012/Navi%20Pillay%20Lecture%2015%20May%202012.pdf

|title= Valuing women as autonomous beings: Women's sexual reproductive health rights.

|author= Pillay, N.

|publisher= Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

|date= 15 May 2012

|accessdate= 18 April 2015}}</ref>

These would generate:

Thanks for all your work! Cheers -Jim

This is a good idea. I will start using it. As far as redoing the citations on sexism, that is a large task and not immediate on my to do list, although it is there. Cleaning up the bare urls before any more could decay was high, and so at least the ref list is stabilized for the moment. Thanks for the tip. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

Zad68 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

This is regarding to your edits at Sexism and the associated Talk page. Zad68 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The "here" link just goes to an unrelated page about gamer gate. Someone uninvolved should visit the article. Honest attempts to improve the article based on sources is being completely blocked. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the GamerGate arbitration case, articles that cover a "gender-related dispute or controversy" are subject to Discretionary Sanctions, and Sexism is such an article. The article Talk page already has a notification about this. This notification ensures that you are aware of this, and allows uninvolved administrators to review the relevant logs to see that you have been properly notified before taking any Discretionary Sanctions action. Zad68 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flanking maneuver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flank (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) 09:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapse

You can collapse stuff on talk pages using {{cot|comment}} at the top and {{cob}} which, when implemented, might look like this:

contains double post
stuff 1 stuff 2 etc

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wot no citations

You've just sprinkled throughout WW1. Please check WP:Verifiability. Cites are needed for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. So you are declaring that you believe that, for instance, 'tens of thousands of horses were killed' is a fact likely to be challenged. And maybe you think that the war did not increase female employment? Get real and get specific.

I suggest that you delete all of your cn additions, read a bit of background about WW1, and when you know more, challenge any particular statement that you have difficulty with.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gravuritas Just because you and I have done our reading doesn't mean that you can have, at times, three to four paragraph stretches without a single citation. This article is too important for that. Yes, I agree that theses claims are accepted by anyone who has studied The War. That doesn't mean that citations should be omitted; it means they will be easy to find. I intend to do this in good time, and replace the tags I have added with inline citations. The first step toward doing this is a thorough read through to identify unsourced claims. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can have 3-4 paras without a citation, particularly if the subject matter is an uncontroversial summary. If you accept that these statements are 'accepted by anyone who has studied the war' then they do not need citations. I've referred you to WP: Verifiability and you are making a statement which is directly contradicted by it. If you wish to add citations, you are free to do so, but in the meantime you are publicly casting doubt on statements that you admit to be true. Gravuritas (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gravuritas If my intention was to cast doubt, I would have tagged them as WP:DUBIOUS. These claims constitute common knowledge for those who are at least amateur subject matter experts, but amateur subject matter experts are not "everyone or nearly everyone". It is not akin to the example given in Template:Citation needed, that "the moon orbits the earth". If it requires someone to already be well familiar with the subject matter to accept the claim as common knowledge, then it is not common knowledge. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in brief, you know better than the many editors who have edited WW1, and despite two replies you have not addressed my initial point. I give up. Gravuritas (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have exactly addressed your initial point. I know better than the editor who cited the Romanovs falling following the war, which was in the article prior to my pointing out that they fell in 1917, well into the war. You have attested that these facts are common knowledge when they are not known the vast majority of people, but only to those who have studied the war. They therefore need citation per WP standards. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased and Sexist on the Sexism page

Protects position that did not prove its claim in TALK, without addressing the actual people warring. Remarkably unprofessional and unapologetically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Penelope37 Much the contrary, I am quite apologetically biased. I do believe the statement should be omitted, and if you actually read the talk page you would see that I proposed, and argued at length, for a complete reboot of the lead. If you feel that your edit is supported by WP:RS then present this evidence in the talk page. I have attempted to do this unsuccessfully. Perhaps you may do a better job. Regardless, this is a discussion to be had on the talk page and not in comments on edits made repeatedly.

There are a large number of users who follow this article and your edits on the lead will probably rarely remain for more than a few minutes. Regardless of whether your intention is to war over this phrase, everyone who follows the article will see what you are doing as edit warring. There are certain...political aspects to contentious articles that are simply part of collaboration among strangers.

I am not arguing, or reverting you, because I support inclusion of the phrase. I am arguing for productivity, and the only potentially productive course of action is to settle this on the talk page. Whether I revert you or not, the edit will be reverted. If you cannot be bothered to address this on the talk page then your time is best spent elsewhere where you can make meaningful and lasting contributions. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

re original work on sexism page

Hi, and apologies if this is the wrong way to reply to your comment on my talk page (please advise if it is).

The difficulty I'm having is that, for example, the sexism page posits several definitions of potential sexism which are contradictory to the very definition of sexism outlined at the beginning of the same page. The page as a whole is, in my humble opinion, of poor quality in that regard - in relation to several areas.

Is it unacceptable original work to point out inherent contradictions in the page, in the same way that it isn't really open to interpretation to point out that 2+2 cannot equal 4 while also equalling 5 at the same time?

Or is it just down to presentation? in which case perhaps with some effort the same can be achieved legitimately.

I.e in this particular case, the article starts by pointing out that sexism is a prejudice or discrimination based on a persons particular gender. This means that a thing can only be sexist if it applies exclusively (in a given context) to one particular gender and not the other. To then posit that objectification (without supposing that it's only acceptable towards one gender in particular in some given context - perhaps advertising?) is sexist is directly contradictory to the definition of sexism already established in the article.

If those contradictions are allowed to persist then the article serves as nothing more than an aggregation of statements that anyone might have ever made about sexism - i.e meaningless unless it is also noted that people are defining sexism in different and unstated ways. It seems that an encyclopedia should, while remaining neutral in subjective matters, at least attempt to maintain some coherence when it comes to objectively definable terminology.

I suppose what I'm saying is that while the reliability or expertness of sources is very subjective in nature, if the article is inherently self contradictory then something must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsyBitsyTeenyWeenyBikini (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@ItsyBitsyTeenyWeenyBikini Ok. There is a lot here but I'll try to explain. Yes, I agree that the article is quite poor and disorganized. Most of the content was added by an undergraduate class project, not Wikipedia editors. So the content is already there, which become important. According to Wikipedia standards, unless you can establish WP:CON(sensus), the default is usually to keep the page as it is.

It is not similar to 2+2, which is considered common knowledge, such as the moon revolves around the earth or Paris is the capital of France. Common knowledge is defined as something known by "everyone or nearly everyone". The nuanced philosophical argument that you are trying to put forth does not meet this standard, thus it requires citation in WP:RS.

Also, because this is a particularly contentious article, there is an elevated informal requirement to discuss an edit and achieve consensus on the talk page first. It's the same thing you'll find on something like abortion or creationism. Because it's controversial you have to meet a higher standard and make your case convincingly to the large number of people who watch sexism.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So, do you think...

...it's time for Melee to be renominated for WP:AFD? Your information is quite convincing ... convincing enough for me to at least not vote "keep" again in a nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should be deleted. There's no question about that. Whether it should be renominated?.. I was concerned that insufficient time had passed to avoid accusations of serial submission to WP:AFD simply to get a desired outcome.

However, I do feel that the discussion was sidetracked on to unrelated argument about the word generally and not Melee (military) or Melee (tactic) which is what the page actually is (or tries to be). Melee (tourney) may be a perfectly legitimate topic, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. The AFD discussion fell into the same trap as the article itself: it became a discussion about a word and not a discussion about a thing.

Having said that, I'm not sure I'm exactly a disinterested party at this point. Perhaps if you wanted to nominate I could state the case there. I'm afraid it might seem like I am pushing an agenda if I nominate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For reinserting Cjhanley's deleted post on Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre. Thanks for setting your foot down. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

NGR Background

If you are interested in reading some background on all of this, this paper from Dale C. Kuehl is quite good. He provides a most reasonable reconstruction of the events beginning on page 73 but the whole paper is worth a read if you are interested. WeldNeck (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is going to sound odd, but I don't particularly care about gaining a comprehensive knowledge about the subject. Actually, the fact that I know basically nothing about it is a strength. It means that I am not biased by whatever I happen to have read or not read. I haven't even read the WP article beyond the lead.

What I care about is each individual edit and whether sources can be provided in favor of one version or the other. I have sufficient competency (see WP:CIR) on matters relating to war and genocide that I can evaluate the sources presented on both sides. I don't care about who is right in the grand philosophical scheme of things because that doesn't particularly help the article. What is important are the edits, and if all sides are willing, that's what we will explore. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound odd at all. A fresh look ... good idea. WeldNeck (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it if those involved, including yourself, would postpone any substantial edits to the page (more than spelling and grammar) until we can sort it out. It is very easy to create conflicts faster than you solve them. Creating is fast; solving is slow. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll offer edit

I've suggested at NGR Talk that we start editing from the top, which should make it easier to keep track of what's done, what's not. This is a wedding anniversary day for me, but I think I can put something together today, or certainly by tomorrow. Let's see if I can understand the technique you suggest at my Talk page. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Timothyjosephwood, GeneralizationsAreBad, Wikimedes, since WeldNeck just pours out (Personal attack removed) he draws from Bateman, I cannot keep up with and refute each one, and will not (which I'm sure makes you happy). However, if there's anything of his that you think I should address for your benefit, please ask. And I must say, the NGR story is 15 years and thousands of hours of research beyond the time of Bateman, the crank, vs. AP, the 160-year-old bedrock news organization of the U.S. I hope this article can address what's known about the massacre in 2015, not the mud that vindictive 7th Cav'ers (and that includes U.S. News's Galloway, Bateman's onetime roommate and 7th Cav association member) flung at honest journalists way back when. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)