User talk:Ttocserp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Prkprescott, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Boquerón (1866) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '' on 18 July 1866, between an allied force of [[Uruguayan people|Uruguayans]], Brazilian, and [[Argentine people|Argentines] on one side and [[Paraguay]] on the other in the [[Paraguayan War]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits regarding Cruelty to animals[edit]

Hi. You recently reverted an edit of mine here[1] on Cruelty to animals and left in the edit summary that it was vandalism. It was not. I had left a message that my edit should be discussed on the Talk page. Please engage in the discussion before reverting again. I am also requesting that you explain the summary comment that I have a "track record" of vandalism.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very willing to discuss this with you in a civilised way. First, however, you must agree to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy.

Which guidelines do you believe I am in breach of?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is how I see it so far: I quote from Principles of Wikipedia etiquette:

Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you—even if they are new. We were all new once. Be polite. Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean. .... Avoid reverts whenever possible ...

In my opinion you have not respected these guidelines and, in so doing, have generated unnecessary animosity when a cooperative approach would have produced better results.

Why do I think that?

Your first intervention was "Let's at least try to be neutral and maintain editing (citation) standards)". This is, in the first place, an allegation that I was not even trying to be neutral. It therefore violated the principle of assuming good faith. You should assume that people are at least trying to act in good faith until the contrary is proved.

It is, in the second place, insulting, and in breach of the guideline "Be polite".

In the third place, instead of patiently explaining why you thought this was not neutral (and it is impossible to tell, going just by your text), you just reverted and reverted. Which is the equivalent of "I'm not going to discuss this with you!"

Now imagine how you might have proceeded if you wanted to persuade.

I would truly appreciate a discussion that starts of from that premise: "I want to persuade".

When I made my first edit, I assumed (incorrectly) that I was editing a historic passage and not a recent edit. I left a rather hurried and very poorly worded edit summary. However, I should not have done this, historic or not. This does not excuse my edit summary which in retrospect should have been worded considerably more appropriately. I apologise for any offence I caused. However, my edits were certainly not vandalism. You yourself have said "assume good faith". Where was your good faith in leaving a summary stating that I was vandalising the article and that I had a history of vandalism? Please explain this.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. We do things hurriedly sometimes. Realising that, I accept that what you did wasn't vandalism.

On the specifics, I read the Article on Cruelty to Animals for the first time the other day and saw, much to my surprise, that there wasn't anything on scientific experiments. I therefore added a paragraph. Because the subject of cruelty in science is a controversial one, and I'm not an expert on it anyway, I decided to confine myself to what ought to be uncontroversial: the doing of *unnecessary* experiments which cause distress. That ought to amount to cruelty on anyone's definition and that's why the paragraph begins as it does. I was, I must say, surprised to be told I wasn't even trying to be neutral.

The topic of *necessary* scientific experiments and cruelty is outside my expertise, but I'm surprised nobody has even tried to tackle it.

On the {{ref needed}, there was an inline citation to the Cave of Dogs article and it contains copious literature references.

I hope this helps. Prkprescott (talk)

Thanks for the above, although it hardly compares with the apology I posted here, and a direct to this on the original Cruelty to animals article. You accused me of having a history of vandalism - an extremely serious accusation. Why did you make this accusation?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please learn to cite references correctly[edit]

Regarding your previous references, please learn here Wikipedia:Citing sources to cite these correctly. At the moment, they are in danger of being reverted.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Why do you think that the British Government denies that Argentina protested annually from 1833 till 1849? As far as I'm aware it doesn't and generally thats a pretty uncontroversial fact. Regards, WCMemail 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the email, I generally prefer not to use email as its more open to use the talk page. Would you mind moving the discussion here? WCMemail 09:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Why do you think that I think the British Government denies that Argentina protested annually from 1833 till 1849? Prkprescott 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, [2] This is an extremely important claim, denied by the British government, and should be supported by good sources, preferably primary sources. The comments you made seemed to imply it. I was surprised, as I didn't think that was a particularly controversial or disputed claim. WCMemail 14:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from.

When I was at school I was taught that "Las Malvinas son argentinas" and, in support of that proposition, that ever since the Falklands were invaded in 1833 the Argentine government delivered an annual protest to the UK. I believed this. After I grew up I discovered that it's false. This made me realise how easily historical claims are falsified and believed. It's also made me sceptical about the whole subject.

So, whenever I see an Argentine polemical source assert that there were annual protests, I ask: what's your proof? To which they invariably reply: "This or that author says so". To which I riposte: "But how does your AUTHOR know? Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true. Where is your proof of the primary facts?" It should be a simple, if tedious matter to trawl through the National Archives and the Argentine public archives and get at the truth. Otherwise we just have pointless tittery-for-tattery claims that can never be resolved.

I take the same attitude to claims in British sources. If someone says there were annual protests but they ceased, I want to know how they know. This isn't hostility -- just a insistence on "The burden of proof lies on he who asserts". It's no use someone saying "Oh, everyone knows it, we don't need any proof". I, for one, don't know it. Ttocserp 14:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK, light bulb. I take it you've learned to recognise the unreliability of the Revisionista movement and their tendency to make stuff up. From Pepper and Pascoe, Getting it Right:
Sources: Several Messages to Congress were published in Britain in the 1830s and 1840s, in English translation, in the volumes of British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP), and all of them from 1810 to 1910 inclusive were reprinted in full in Spanish in Los Mensajes 1810-1910, by H. Mabragaña, Buenos Aires 1910.
Pepper and Pascoe are pretty good at sourcing material but mere mention of their name will have Langus-TxT incandescent with rage. Maybe better to go with the primary source, I believe its available via Google Books. WCMemail 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha! At last some sources. While still no primary sources, we can find them.

Why don't you work these up into a properly referenced passage and then post them in the Wikipedia article. It would be a public service.

Incidentally, there was no Argentine Congress at the dates you mention. There was no Congress until after the overthrow of Rosas and the promulgation of the Argentine Constitution under Urquiza. "Congress" probably refers to the Sala of the Province of Buenos Aires.

Ttocserp 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing from the revert that someone was following our discussion. There are other sources we can use, do you object if I email you a number of academic papers? I always ask first. Regards, WCMemail 22:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure 86.132.124.176 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English Argentine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Prescott. 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) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources[edit]

Hi Prkprescott, thank you for your thoughts on the Falklands-related articles.

However, I've seen that you call for the use of primary sources to back the text in the articles.[3][4] Have you read WP:PRIMARY? Those kind of sources can be valuable at online forums and such, where people express their own opinion, but here in Wikipedia we are supposed to reflect the whole range of academic opinion on the subject. To do so, we must avoid primary sources to avoid incurring in WP:OR, that is, original research: brand new interpretations of primary sources. We, as Wikipedia editors, don't have the credentials to do that; we are not WP:RELIABLE.

What do you think? ----Langus TxT 16:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is Langus, you read WP:PRIMARY to mean we can never use or cite primary sources but that isn't the case. WCMemail 16:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Langus, I can see that as a rule we ought not to use primary sources when good secondary or even tertiary sources can be found. Imagine writing a Wikipedia Article called Causes of World War II from primary sources! So I can agree with your sentiments. In this case, however, we have a kind of tricky problem I don't quite know how to deal with -- I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I admit. Because the subject of acquiescence vs. non-acquiescence re the Falklands is highly contentious politically, it's been deluged by propaganda. Almost as bad is a flood of books, poorly sourced or supported by tertiary citations that turn upon enquiry to be quaternary citations based on worse. So where do we find good secondary sources, and how do we know we've got 'em when we see 'em? Analogy; it's 1941 but Wikipedia has been invented. Who caused World War II -- write the article with the whole range of academic opinion. How do we find "the whole range of academic opinion"? Do we give equal time to Nazi historians -- or "American academics in the pay of Jewish gold"? All right, a bit of an exaggeration; but you see my problem.

I suspect that this is one of those cases where primary sources are the only ones that can do the job. As the Curry Monster says, they're not formally excluded. What do you think? Ttocserp 17:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(I changed my handle but I was Prkprescott. Ttocserp 17:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, not every secondary source is reliable, and tertiary sources are to be used with care. Primary sources are acceptable in some stances, but surely not on the acquiescence question. The thing is, Wikipedia doesn't need to reach "the truth" or "the final conclusion" on every topic, specially on contentious issues like this one, where there isn't a final or universally accepted conclusion. To deal with it, we are expected to say "these experts say this; some other experts say that". That's how neutrality is reached: by describing disagreements instead of taking sides in the argument. WP:NPOV/FAQ is probably the best essay to understand this concept; I recommend its reading to anyone getting involved on the Falklands-related articles.
You correctly point out that we cannot be expected to know beforehand the whole range of academic opinions on every article we choose to work on; however, due to the WP:WORKINPROGRESS nature of Wikipedia, we can expect that someone at some point in time will chime in to put it in consideration. After all, academic literature is always expanding and subject to change. We must, however, do our best to include everything we know, as fallible WP editors.
As to your question: "how do we know we have a good secondary source in our hands?" From my personal experience I can say that on this topic it's not always an easy question to tackle, but WP:RSN, the Reliable Source Noticeboard, is the recommended place to go. I've learned the hard way that they won't usually judge a source by themselves, but only in relation to the information that they are intended to back. So, that must be included too in any question posted in the noticeboard. ----Langus TxT 21:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Langus. I'll read the texts you recommend, and think about them. Happy Sunday evenings :=) Ttocserp 21:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to say: before getting help from that noticeboard, WP:RELIABLE is the guideline we should look upon to try to answer the question ourselves.
Enjoy the rest of the Sunday and have a good week! ----Langus TxT 21:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Left bank (of a river)[edit]

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 that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. Harry Let us have speaks 20:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Mulhall brothers[edit]

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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Mulhall brothers. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Michael George Mulhall. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Michael George Mulhall – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Drjamesphillips (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Standard[edit]

Could you please add a citation to the article that refers to the brother of Michael George Mullhall as co founder of this publication. Thanks Drjamesphillips (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't be jittery; I already have. Dont be premature; the world will unfold. Ttocserp 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon 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 (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 23:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edward Thomas Mulhall[edit]

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 Edward Thomas Mulhall 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 a person or group of people, 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. Supdiop (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Drjamesphillips. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

River banks[edit]

I have added the terminology to the main River article which is where it belongs (if it's needed at all). Harry Let us have speaks 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fortress of Humaitá, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages River Plate, Guaraní and Left bank. 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) 09:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9[edit]

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.

Humaitá (disambiguation)
added a link pointing to Amazonas
Michael George Mulhall
added a link pointing to Irish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Paraguayan War[edit]

You said in Paraguayan War's talk page there are morep ressing matters than debating names. Did you mean that it's more important to actually improve the article? --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, very much so. Ttocserp 13:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. --Lecen (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what attracted you into Brazilian history? --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid `i'm not up in Brazilian history except when it affects River Plate history.Ttocserp 06:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Juan Manuel de Rosas is now a FA. I'm truly grateful for your review and for your support. I meant it. --Lecen (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon 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 (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Drab"[edit]

You're kidding, right? Your argument is that because a word is in the OED -- which attempts to be exhaustive and completely inclusive -- and is used in a Shakespeare play, it isn't obscure in modern English? Fine, if that's what you think, please go to the article's talk page and make your argument there, but stop edit warring. Per BRD your Bold edit has been Reverted and now you need to Discuss it, leaving the article in the status quo ante.

Please do go make that argument, I'm very interested in seeing how many people agree with you that "drab" as a synonym for "prostitute" is not obscure. BMK (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ttocserp. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

noq (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at British Empire 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 are 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. WCMemail 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Slaughter Yard[edit]

Thank you for the substantial work you have done on The Slaughter Yard. I reviewed the article through the Good Article process at Talk:The Slaughter Yard/GA1, and found that it does not pass, and it is not likely to do so in the near future. I highly recommend looking at the tags I have added to the article, alongside the feedback I provided at Talk:The Slaughter Yard/GA1. Feel free to ask me for more specific feedback on the article's talk page. Keep up the great work, and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fortress of Humaitá, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vicksburg. 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) 10:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Andrade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brains Trust. 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) 10:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fortress of Humaitá[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fortress of Humaitá you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortress of Humaitá - "Humaitá phase"?[edit]

Hi, I'd appreciate if you can please explain in more detail the difference between the "Humaitá phase" of the Paragyuayan War, and the "Siege of Humaitá", so I can understand why you recently reverted my linkage to "Siege of Humaitá". Please also point to verifiable sources referring to the Humaitá phase" of the war, as I haven't heard of this before and would love to know more about it. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't revert your edition in any hostile spirit by the way, as you probably can tell.
As you know, the Siege of Humaitá began when the Allies succeeded in actually cutting off the Fortress complex from the outside world. The Humaitá phase of the Paraguayan war, although ending with the capture of Humaità ,began earlier, and may be said to have begun as soon as the Allies landed in Paraguay. I am still working up my sources, but (for example) you see this considered in detail in the Spanish Wikipedia article

[5], where this phase of the war is called the Campaign of Humaitá.

I'm glad to discover a fellow-enthusiast for the subject. Ttocserp 08:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passage of Humaitá, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Boom and Blue-water. 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) 09:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of the Triple Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entre Ríos. 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) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Vuelta de Obligado[edit]

About this edit: dead webpages can be retreievd from Web Archive. Latest archived copy is here. It does mention Palmerstone. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Peru[edit]

Hello - Is there an independent reporting source going on about this? Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not understand your question. Please explain it. In the meantime, kindly do not revert: a question is a request for information, not a reason for reversion (as required by TW:ABUSE). Ttocserp 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ttocserp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance/Paraguayan War[edit]

[6] The fact that Argentina gained much of the Chaco province is not uncontroversial, that fact that Brazil wanted a buffer with Argentina is not uncontroversial. Would it not have been better to add sources rather than remove this? WCMemail 15:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on replacement sourced material right now.Ttocserp 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah OK, good luck, I would like to see that article improved. I'm afraid I gave up on it. WCMemail 17:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
To coin an expression, "I'm nae surprised."

Music Hall[edit]

Did you know that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort? This would perhaps suggest you don't. Would it have been beyond all of your own capabilities to find the citation yourself? CassiantoTalk 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement about copyright law is, in fact, untrue, and I intended to remove it. Before doing so I thought it would be courteous to give anyone a chance to substantiate it, just in case I might be mistaken. Ttocserp 19:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If you know it to be untrue then no amount of research by anyone would result in a reliable source. I'd remove it (if you know it to be untrue) and challenge others to find the information. Leaving citation tags is ok but the enevitable question is: "Why can't you find it?". CassiantoTalk 19:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know, but if you remove the sentence the rest of the paragraph doesn't make sense. I think someone who's a music hall buff should be given a reasonable chance to retrieve it.Ttocserp 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieve what? You've said yourself it's factually incorrect, so I don't know what you are expecting others to find to counter that? Perhaps you could find a source that says it is false and copy and paste it into the edit summary. That would justify any fixing to the sentences that both lead and follow the offending text. CassiantoTalk 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Relax, and think what Socrates would have done. The (C) point I know is false; the rest of the paragraph is confused but might have a germ of truth in it. Therefore. let's leave it to those who might know better than you and I (imagine that amazing possibility). Ttocserp 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
"let's leave it to those who might know better than you and I" -- having written four WP:FA's on English Music Hall artistes, I'd consider myself to be something of an authority on the subject, but I'm damned if I'm going to go off and do the hard work as a result of your lazy tagging. I put it to you that the answers are out there, somewhere, but you just can't be bothered to go off and find it. Tagging in the hope that maybe someone will find the information for you is lazy, unhelpful, and is of no benefit to anyone, anywhere. CassiantoTalk 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are no authority on copyright law; I have written a book on the topic. The lazy, unhelpful person must the one who wrote a paragraph of disinformation in WP without bothering to source it. I'm glad it wasn't you or me.Ttocserp 10:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This isn't playground point scoring, this is about your seemingly obvious inability to research information yourself, preferring to instead tag something for someone else to do. This kind of editing helps nobody. CassiantoTalk 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Brown water navy[edit]

Hi Ttocserp, I am surprised that you wholesale reverted my edits to the above article. Most of the changes I made were to convert the passive voice to active. (For sources that disagree with your stylistic choices see both George Orwell and Strunk and White). The passive voice is deadening, and hides agency. I also changed some words that, while not wrong, were ill-chosen, e.g., "event" to "feat". As a result, my edits did improve the readability of the text. When you wholesale revert text you are signalling that you are unthinkingly protective of your wording, but no what basis is not apparent. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe a wholesale reversion was excessive, but it was better than letting it stand uncorrected. In my opinion it's as well not to amend someone's prose unnecessarily, e.g. on purely stylistic grounds, because it can lead to the making of inadvertent errors, as here. Consider your amended paragraph, which contains two grammatical errors and one factual error, all made inadvertently and in good faith: -

"Six vessels of the Brazilian ironclad squadron eventually succeeded in dashing past Humaitá in an incident known as the Passage of Humaitá, a feat considered nearly impossible. Although the Brazilian navy could not operate far beyond its forward base, still, Brazilian domination of the river meant that Paraguay could no longer resupply the fortress; eventually land forces starved it out and captured captured in in the Siege of Humaitá."

If you read that paragraph again you will easily find the grammatical errors.
The factual error is not so easy to spot, because to do so requires a detailed knowledge of the relevant South American history; but anyway, your revision made the land forces alone responsible for starving out the fortress, which was factually incorrect (and, as you will see if you read the Passage of Humaitá article, which I hope you will, impossible). The main point of attempting the highly dangerous naval Passage of Humaitá was to interdict Paraguayan fluvial communications with the fortress: the Allied armies by themselves would have waited a long time indeed to starve it out.
I too am an admirer of Orwell's prose, but in his article on the English language — to which I presume you were referring — he sets out his rules for writing good English and then adds another one. I am quoting from memory, but it goes something like this: "Sooner break all of these rules than write something downright barbarous". While you didn't write something downright barbarous, three mistakes in one paragraph should caution us against unnecessary intervention on purely stylistic grounds.

Corn[edit]

Sure enough, you're right. Turns out the British side of the pond uses "corn" differently than people in my neck of the woods. Alephb (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of Humaitá[edit]

Thought you'd like these:

In case you wish to upload them, the details are here:

Have fun! --Lecen (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fascinated to see these, but each one gives me "blocked plug-in". whatever that means. Ttocserp 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Signing[edit]

Information icon 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 Talk:Emeric Essex Vidal, 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 (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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.--Joobo (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ttocserp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at England 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 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. ----Snowded TALK 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Please read WP:BRD. You were bold, you made a change, it was reverted. You then discuss and make a case. You don't simply make the change again and tell other editors they have to justify reverting to the long standing text. ----Snowded TALK 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Snowded, I'm glad that you want to discuss this. Which forum do you prefer to use? I would suggest the Talk page for England, where all may contribute and reach a consensus. Please signify you agreement, if it exists, by replying to my opening on the talk page,Ttocserp 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You made no case, you just said there wasn't one which is probably why the first editor reverted you. I've added a comment ----Snowded TALK 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, shall we go to the talk page? Not too much sense discussing it here. Ttocserp 21:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I already did - the above comment was one to one and didn't relate to conduct but to behaviour ----Snowded TALK 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Zam-Buk[edit]

Please do not revert again, try explaining your objections on the article's talk page. Eric Corbett 23:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cougar[edit]

You may want to consult the article's talk page yourself and address the issues raised. I posted there already 4 days ago and so far there was no objection against potential removal or any dispute of the raised issues.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Hi. It appears you're currently using a custom signature which doesn't include any links. Per WP:SIGLINK, signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. You can restore the default linking by going to Special:Preferences, and then under Signature, remove the checkbox that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." --Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graveney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Paella[edit]

Hello! I see you have reverted my edition. I don't have an account in english wikipedia, but I do in catalan wikipedia. I am surprised that you talk about "linguistic nationalism", could you please tell me where is the nationalism? As valencian is a dialect of catalan (as canadian is of english, for example), we cannot refer to valencian as a language, therefore, "valencian language" is an incorrect expression. As for the "blitherly unsourced", just check the definition of Valencian and/or Catalan. But if you want more sources, learn about philologists (science). There is no nationalism here, there is just a correction of an error/mistake. Please consider to learn the difference between language and dialect before re-editing again. Cordialament.88.180.9.113 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ttocserp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edition[edit]

You reverted me this edition saying "Not in cited source". The source says:

valencian

2. m. LING. Romance language spoken in the Valencian Community, as well as in Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, the French department of the Eastern Pyrenees, the Principality of Andorra, the eastern part of Aragon and the Sardinian city of Alghero, places where it receives the name of Catalan.

Is it an error? Thanks --FogueraC (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I see that what I added is explained in the second paragraph. So your reversion is OK. 😄 --FogueraC (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yohimbine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonomic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Ttocserp! You created a thread called Absurd map - expert needed 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, 21 February 2019 (UTC)