The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Good thing you caught the Canadian Flag being wrong WWIImaster22 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you removed my small sentence on his cultural barbarism as unsourced. You appear to have left the rest of the section however which is also unsourced. May I ask why? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.184.11 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, both unsourced edits should have been removed. My mistake. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I meant the section, Sulla's legacy section only has one reference - the rest can be removed, no? Will you back me up to delete the whole section except the sentence that is referenced? Otherwise, we are simply choosing which un-referenced sections we like? I think about 50% of the article - looking at - and most wikipedia articles can be deleted - because very few have proper references to everything stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.184.11 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit; I'm definitely not knowledgeable about the book. When I added the 24601 note to the lede, I considered that it was likely the book didn't place the same emphasis on the number, but decided it was OK (either way) because of the hatnote, "This article is about the character in Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables and its musical adaptation." Given that, do you still think it's information that should be relegated to a bullet at the bottom of the article? What if the note in the lede clarified it was specific to the musical? In any event, it's much better now than before. This edit started as a discussion with some colleagues who had forgotten the number and looked at the Wikipedia page and were surprised it did not help them. jhawkinson (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the number only appears twice in the book, both time in offhand reference and has no real significance to the storyline. Likewise it is either not mentioned or only casually referenced in any of the movies based on the book, except for the musical. It is only in the musical that it has any real significance, and for that reason the notation belongs in the section specific to the musical. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that because it is such a significant part of the character in the musical, then IF indeed the article is about both the musical and the book, it deserves to be in the lede. If the article were different (e.g. it had a different hatnote), I'd feel othewise. It sounds like you disagree with this argument, but I don't quite understand why. Can you help me understanding your reasoning? jhawkinson (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my position and the reason for it, I see no reason to reiterate it. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Storm Rising (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tovarishch (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) 09:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss. The edit was non-consensus and the discussion is ongoing Quite a META:DICK move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have so far offered no basis for you assertion other than your own POV. Just offer one RS to support you assertion and the discussion is ended.

I have offered no POV. I am neutral. I have stated that the previous version should stay until a new consensus is reached. You're disruptive, but that's OK. It will work itself out in the end.

You have given an assertion that has been refuted by RS, but have no offered no RS to support your assertion therefore you assertion can only be POV. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a template that is included in several articles. You might want to fix that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that template as it was completely irrelevant to the article it was attached to. I posted a request on the talk page for someone to provide a reason for it to be there several months ago. None was given so I removed the baseless material. Unless you can show how those two unrelated topics are linked it will remain as such. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the template? No, you blanked it. It is still in place and several articles link to it. I don't care whether it remains or is deleted (preferable) but at least remove the links to it as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is necessary do it yourself. Nobody is stopping you. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&curid=5042916&diff=582620772&oldid=582614368# The previous edit was exactly the same. Apparently you don't honour WP:BRD equally or is it just me that you act hypocritically toward? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hypocrisy, you have no basis for your edit, so it is reverted as any baseless edit would be. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm curious as to your rationale for this edit. Reverting someone asking a question on a talk page is pretty unusual, is there any special reason you did so? Bertaut (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you did not read the edit or you would not have to ask. "...kill all the lawyers..." is hardly appropriate and clearly has nothing to do with the article. 198.163.53.10 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't appreciate my sense of humour. I was being ironic. I understood my comment was childish. It wasn't sarcasm. FelisRead(talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per [WP:NOTFORUM] the talk page is for constructive discussion of the article, not as a platform for commedy. If you wish to use irony to reinforce a point then that is acceptable. As it was your comment was not constructive (and neither was it particularly funny). Mediatech492 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Hope you enjoy the rest of your day. FelisRead(talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your admonition. It was certainly less than constructive. I can't say it won't happen again, but I can say your removal was in good faith. Thank you for defusing the situation. FelisRead(talk) 19:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatech492, normally I would welcome your intervention. However, if you look at the talk page, you will see that the person previously just known anonymously as the IP editor, and now FelisRead has been a disruptive and aggressive editor since his arrival on the page over a month ago. He has already been blocked once from the page for edit warring. Now another dispute resolution is underway - see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Highland_Clearances. The reason I reinstated the remark of FelisRead that you deleted was that I felt that it should be present and visible during the dispute resolution process. It is a good reflection of the difficulty that I and all other editors have had attempting to deal with him. By deleting his comment, you have inadvertently done him a favour that he does not deserve. --Camerojo (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with your premise Camerojo. By restoring a maliciious edit you do him more of a favour than you claim he gains by removal. Resoultion does not require malicious edits to remain in place, they can be recovered for review without having to leave them as a disruptive element. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution is over - and we received some good guidance. However one of the comments made by the volunteer mediator was "All participants have behaved well under the pressure of long debate and have remained, commendably civil." I think that is true of all other editors but not FelisRead. I think it would have been easier for the volunteer to have made a more accurate assessment if FelisRead's comments had been left in place. I fear that FelisRead may be encouraged by the volunteer's comment to continue his aggressive and uncivil (he would claim humorous) attitude. I would encourage you to continue monitoring this page. --Camerojo (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you both agree, undo the removal. I don't consider it a personal favour. I consider it an act of diplomacy. FelisRead(talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources which refer to the young Nero as 'Marcus Domitius Ahenobarbus', that is, before he was renamed in with a Julio-Claudian title. All of the sources refer to him as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus.

In Book XI of Annals, Tacitus states: ' While Claudius sat to witness the games of the circus, some of the young nobility acted on horseback the battle of Troy. Among them was Britannicus, the emperor's son, and Lucius Domitius, who became soon afterwards by adoption heir to the empire with the surname of Nero. '

In the Chapter on Nero in Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, he states: ' Two celebrated families, the Calvini and Aenobarbi, sprung from the race of the Domitii. The Aenobarbi derive both their extraction and their cognomen from one Lucius Domitius, ' [an ancestor of Nero's] ' of whom we have this tradition... This family had the honour of seven consulships, one triumph, and two censorships and being admitted into the patrician order, they continued the use of the same cognomen, with no other praenomina than those of Cneius and Lucius. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.clare (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it was unsourced. Include verifiable sourcing with the edit and it can stand. An unsourced edit is always inherently suspect and subject to deletion per Wikipedia:Editing policy Mediatech492 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm fairly new to this so don't even know if this is where I'm meant to be talking to you but here goes anyway! I edited 'sun of York' to 'son of York' because I think that's what Shakespeare wrote. What's your evidence to the contrary please? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthornbush (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked many Reliable Sources on this, including written text and online text. Every RS I have found uses "sun". I have not found any that say "son". Mediatech492 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really interesting - I always took it as read that it was 'Son' and was surprised to find so many references to 'sun' - both online and printed. All I would suggest is looking at the (apparent!) original text linked to from this page:- "Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Tragedy of Richard the Third" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthornbush (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mediatech492; I saw your revert of my edit on Remembrance poppy. The thing is, your revert doesn't match your edit summary; since you say (rightly) that French Flanders was (!) an historical region of Flanders, but it isn't anymore nowadays (and neither was it in WWI). The article Flanders links to the current region of Flanders (i.e. the northernmost part of Belgium), and not to French Flanders, which was originally a part of the County of Flanders, but was never part of the current region of Flanders (the latter name has been generalized to suit the whole northernmost part of Belgium, and not just the historical region of the County of Flanders). In WWI, there was fighting across this border between France and Belgium, of course, but to say that Flanders [is] a region of Europe that overlies parts of Belgium and France is plainly wrong. That is why I tried to rewrite the sentence to explain myself better; apparently I didn't succeed. Could you please explain what you think should be done? Because now the sentence is still just wrong. Sincerely, Kthoelen (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. Flanders is a geographically defined region, not a political entity with borders. The French people to this day still use the term "Flanders" in reference to that part of the region in their own territory. Belgian Flanders and French Flanders combine to form the totality of the geographic region. The Belgians officially refer to their portion of Flanders as "the Flemish Region" and the French divide their portion into two areas called "French Westhoek" and "Lilloise Flanders". These are terms atha are currently in use in addition to being historically relevant. So my edit was correct. Cheers! Mediatech492 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'm Flemish, and although I've never heard the regional names, I'll believe you. The thing is, the link still refers to Flanders, and not to French Flanders, which is more correct. It doesn't matter if the French call it this or that, the statement that "Flanders is a region of Europe that overlies parts of Belgium and France" is officially wrong, since the official name for that region in France is Nord (which also includes French Hainaut), and the official designation of Flanders is the northern federated state of Belgium with Brussels as its capital. ([1]) The Flemish Region (which we don't use, as it's called "Vlaamse Gemeenschap" or "Flemish Community") you talk about, is purely a political entity (which you say correctly), and doesn't define the geography, although Flanders does. Even as a Belgian I had to think that one through; stupid politicians... - Kthoelen (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dominion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the named to 'Octavian' because, as you see, under the section in the article where I made the change, the name 'Octavian' is still used. However, if the section where I made the change states and depicts occurrences that happened in 20 BC, you are correct because by 20 BC he was already 'Augustus', a cognomen that was used after the First Settlement in 27 BC. But the article, while well written, is confusing because most of the info in the article that comes after this section in the article where I made the change is "prior" to 27 BC, and even the actual name change in the article is below this section in the article where I made the name change to 'Octavian'. What I am saying is that the article is not written completely chronologically, and that confused me.

Thanks for the help and the edit. It is great to 'meet' a Classics and European medieval-Renaissance history buff as I am!

Leecorp1 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs a great deal of work. I wish I had more time to work on it myself. Cheers! Mediatech492 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in fact, evidence of the Selkirk colonists leaving the settlement. From Gerald Friesen's The Canadian Prairies: A History page 80:

"On the morrow of the clash, the settlers, broken by the loss of family and friends and by the sight of the mutilated bodies, hastened to collect their belongings and depart. Cuthbert Grant, once more a clerk rather than a war captain, took an inventory of the goods left behind, signed the lists of thousands of items for hours on end, and, then, after two days of these last details, he watched the colonists sail northward, leaving his metis once more in command of the forks."

^[1]

I need to edit an article as part of an assignment for my class, so I will be adding this information with the citation. Thank you for your revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justo Mendoza (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I was just about to restore that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review WP:BRD. You boldly added material, I reverted it, and then in theory you should have started a discussion. Your persistent re-insertion of the material, especially when a discussion has been initiated at the article's Talk page, is neither good faith nor in keeping with what is generally considered best practice. I might also recommend that you review WP:3RR, which you're in danger of violating. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I added easily verifiable sourced material that is valid according to the established parameters of the article. You have disputed it on the grounds of notability which you have the right to do. I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:Policy. The onus is therefore on you to prove you assertion that the information is somehow inapropriate. As for being in violation of WP:3RR, you started the reversion war, not me. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pass by and revert an edit by an established user without explanation. You are held to the same standards as everyone else. All that aside, I am doubtful that that plane could be anything other than a Boeing 747. The most "dubious" part about it is the Japanese Airlines part. Dustin (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is that you did not leave an edit summary. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions too easily, but you can often expect to be reverted if you just revert long-established users' good faith edits with no reason given. Dustin (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]