User talk:Ecrm87

Please don’t add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you have done on the List of active Ukrainian military aircraft article. The source you provided was a dead link. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources –Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits are all cited and none of the links are dead, which I note is not the case with your edit. Please read the edit carefully before making unsourced reverts.

Unfortunately your source has not been updated since 19 вересня 2013 (September 19, 2013) - current sourcing supersedes outdate content. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, but my source is cited in relation to the origin of the planes, something that is entirely unsourced in your edit. That sourcing therefore remains relevant until you can provide alternative proof.

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on List of active Ukrainian military aircraft article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users'. If they're certain changes you want to make, then do them individually, as opposed to reverting the entire article. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FOX 52 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this with you in the past (See Talk:List_of_active_Ukrainian_military_aircraft and the section Edits by Fox 52) and after well over a decade of Anonymous editing have created this account for the purpose of logging the dispute in full. I have noticed you repeatedly undoing fully sourced Users edits on other pages for no reason other than to apparently revert to your own version. You hardly ever engage when criticism is levelled at your edits and seem to cite Wikipedia policy with extraordinary selectiveness. An example is right above, you say: 'You are expected to avoid editing disruptively and to try to reach consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users'. This is exactly the behaviour you engage in, making it virtually impossible for anyone to make even a sourced edit on a page edited by you. As you've repeatedly ignored my points on the Article Talk page, this page and your own Talk page, I'm notifying you here that I have requested a Third Opinion on this dispute at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active Disagreements. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be best - FOX 52 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent passage in the MoS is under "Biography".

Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis). ...

More similar examples follow (e.g. with "king"), all of which I followed throughout my translation of the article from the German. Given this, could you please go back now and undo your capitalizations? Thanks GHStPaulMN (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you've lower cased king in "Frederick VI was king of Denmark". Also, please note per MOS:DECADE that decades to not use an apostrophe. DrKay (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake with the apostrophe, spell checker was telling me it was wrong. As for 'king of Denmark' see the text directly above which is copied from MOS. When used in that fashion it is a noun and should not be capitalised as per the policy. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between 'Richard Nixon was President of the United States' and 'Frederick VI was king of Denmark'. I don't understand the reasoning for why one is lower case and the other capitalized. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought that the Unmodified statement meant it was incorrect. The previous paragraph says it should only be capitalised in two instances, and it doesn't fit the bill for either of those. Ecrm87 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed above, "president" in the President of the United States article was placed in lowercase as per MOS:JOBTITLES. Specifically, it is uncapitalized because it is preceded by the modifier "the" (bullet 3 and table column 2 example 1).

I have accordingly reverted your edit capitalizing the term.

Regards, WikiEditor50 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States Constitution, 'President of the United States', 'the President of the United States' are capitalised. This is also the case with all official government communications. Therefore to put president into lower case in its job title is to be legally incorrect. Ecrm87 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go through the talk page of the article. This has been discussed already. See Talk:President of the United States/Archive 10 for example. What the government does is inconsequential; they tend to capitalize many things to give importance, which is not followed on Wikipedia. WikiEditor50 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies really are dumb. Two hundred years of historical usage and along come a group of people who decide they know better. No wonder academics look down on this place. Ecrm87 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A case of bad temper at crossing accepted historical uses, not archived so as to own the mistake. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyanks for most of your "corrections", but we don't in fact capitalize "the king" etc in running prose, only with the name. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes we do. See this from MOS:JOBTITLE:

• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).

Ecrm87 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]