User talk:Leventio

I move talks to the archive around the beginning of the year (last Jan 2022).

Hi Leventio! I'm little bit confused. Hope you can help:

The Platinum Jubilee article says that the Jubilee emblem was registered with the Canadian Heraldic Authority in August 2021, and that is according to GG's source, which states the date as 20 August 2021. But the Canada Gazette states that it was registered on 15 December 2021.

What to do here? Peter Ormond 💬 11:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond: I'd go with the Gazette as that is the more official source and is typically where the announcements are formalized. The gg.ca webpage itself is incomplete in the data it presents (such as the the edition of the Gazette it was supposed to be in). The fact that the GG.ca page (and code) has been removed/hidden from the public makes me suspect that the specific GG.ca page for the emblem may have never been intended for public consumption.

With regards to the dates, if I were to take a stab in the dark, August was probably when the Herald actually created it, and December was when it was actually gazetted. But this is purely speculation on my part. Leventio (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I also felt that the Gazette was more reliable than any other website, but I just wanted to confirm. And, the emblem was created in April 2021, and sent for the Queen's approval in May 2021. [1] Peter Ormond 💬 05:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that and the photograph in the section about the Royal Air Force. That image is not the only one available. More can be seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peaked_caps_of_the_Royal_Air_Force

I suggest adding more photographs, but arranging them in a row under the text, as is the case here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force#Helicopters What do you think of that? Dreddmoto (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: Yeah sure! Saying that, my initial major edits on that page was largely aimed at reducing the clutter of (what I thought to be) repetitive images and some minor MoS image edits. So long as images in the gallery are distinct in purpose, I don't really see why we couldn't expand it with a gallery. Leventio (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. I'll choose some images. --Dreddmoto (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I don't know why but, the discussion there was moved to an archive. I noticed your addition of images which were useful. Would adding an image of a jacket like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tradewinds_2014_140624-M-IJ438-088.jpg or this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Payette_with_Petro_Poroshenko_in_Ukraine_-_2018_-_(1516277406).jpg be useful? What about a good view of the matching hat, like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20151026_ITA_Showing_capabilities_in_Arrepiado_%26_Tancos_2_(22585064891).jpg ? Dreddmoto (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: Happy to help. This is more of a preference thing, but I've been avoiding images that feature other camouflage patterns that isn't CADPAT for clarity purposes (outside the image featuring MARPAT at the end, though I added for direct comparison purposes). That said, I've went ahead and swapped out the second CADPAT TW image in the multitemp with this [2] to showcase the pattern on most of the operational uniform & on the boonie hat. Leventio (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The choice of images is helpful in showing the different uniform items. I had not thought of including the image with MARPAT uniform or how you arranged the first and second images. Those could be useful ideas that can be adapted for use in other articles. Thanks again. --Dreddmoto (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for re-inserting my edits! I know about the history of Toronto but I don't know about how to use Wikipedia. I assumed I had screwed something up...

The edits that you have reverted were intended to correct the statement that the Mississauga people inhabited the area around Toronto prior to the Haudenosaunee. I have never heard that theory, not have I seen any evidence of that. The Beaver Wars around Toronto were between the Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat (and other non-Haudenosaunee Iroquoians like the Petun and Neutral), and didn't involve the Mississaugas, as far as I know.

Also, in terms of the absorbtion and integration of the Huron-Wendat into the Haudenosaunee, that is not very accurate, in my view. Some have called the attack a genocide. Here is how Lloyd E. Divine Jr., a Wyandotte historian, describes the 1649 battles in On the Back of a Turtle (at pg. 55):

The Huron-Wendat initially repelled the Iroquois invasions; however, after the palisade walls were finally breached on March 16, 1649, many Huron-Wendats were indiscriminately slaughtered. After the destruction of the great Huron-Wendat village of St. Louis, the next day the Iroquois advanced deeper into the heart of Huronia and attacked the French fort and mission of St. Marie. There, all three hundred Huron warriors who had been sent to repel the attack were killed. It is estimated that during three battles over two days the Iroquois lost at least one-third of their army. With such a loss the Iroquois decided to withdraw to Iroquoia, for they were aware the Huron could amass an army and kill every last one of their warriors. Unknowing of the Iroquois retreat, the Huron, fearing another attack, scattered, essentially abandoning Huronia and leaving it a desolated and haunted country. The Iroquois had unknowingly accomplished a decisive victory and did not negotiate any terms of surrender. In the time it took the Huron to collect their personal belongings and flee, likely a matter of hours, the once-all-mighty Huron-Wendat Confederacy ceased to exist.

Mr. Divine uses the terms like "annihilate", disperse" and "captivity". He says the following about the Haudenosaunee war with the Huron-Wendat at pg 56:

A long, horrible war had razed complete villages, and their inhabitants were slaughtered or led away into captivity and adoption. Tribes were displaced and many annihilated. However, today there is no accounting for many of the various tribes that once existed. They were either destroyed or adopted into other tribes, and their names lost in history.

Also, I think that the article shouldn't minimize the existence of descendants of Huron-Wendat refugees, the Huron-Wendat Nation in Quebec. Mcollinge (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcollinge: Hey, no worries, I figured I'd just give you a heads up. Just a quick primer for Wiki though, if you remove a source without a comment summary in the article, it generally raises flags to other editors about a potential blanking.

With regards to the content your adding, for this: intended to correct the statement that the Mississauga people inhabited the area around Toronto prior to the Haudenosaunee, I have no contentions with your edits there. In a similar vein, I've also never heard that and as far as I know the Missisaugas moved into the region at the end of the 17th century). If I did revert this series of edits, apologies for that, that was not my intention, feel free to correct that. Similarly with regards to this: Also, I think that the article shouldn't minimize the existence of descendants of Huron-Wendat refugees, the Huron-Wendat Nation in Quebec, overall I have no issue with that, though it should be kept in mind that the content should be within reason and pertinent to the overall article topic (being the History of Toronto), and not of the wider region/group (which have their own respective articles).

In saying all that, the issue I had concerns with was the absorbtion/dispersement of the Huron and Iroqouis. There seems to be opposing viewpoints on this issue, with the article already echoing the viewpoint that they were absorbed after said conflict (which itself is a reflection of a source used in the article). Per the source:

During the 1640s and 1650s, the Iroquois confederacy defeated, destroyed, dispersed, or absorbed their aboriginal enemies in southern Ontario, including the Hurons, along with peoples in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other areas. Some Huron refugees retreated westward to join other displaced people in forming a new nation, the Wyandot, and others either fled eastward to settle near Quebec or disappeared into the native societies of the north. However, the largest group of surviving Hurons were absorbed as wartime adoptees into the Iroquois nations to the south and eventually were integrated as full members of the Five Nations Confederacy. (Natives and Newcomers, 1600-1793, Carl Benn, Toronto History Museums)

That said, I understand you have a conflicting opinion on the issue, and thats fine (provided you have a reliable source that backs up your assertion). So long as you have a reliable source, you're free to add an opposing account/assessment of the conflict, but you should not remove the opposing viewpoint/assessment of an issue without explanation (unless a prevailing opinion is well established, both accounts/assessments are valid). Ideally, if there are opposing opinions on the issue (and one side is not well-established as the prevailing one), both accounts should be presented neutrally and well-sourced.

In saying that though, if you wish to assert a claim as strong as genocide, it is important that you have sources that back up said claim that explicitly call it as such (not to say that it wasn't, but a claim of that nature would requires a source that makes the statement). With that note, I feel it is important to point out one of Wikipedia's three pillars, that Wikipedia in itself is supposed to be a reflection of what is written in WP:RS, and not an editorialization of the source. The content you add should generally be a reflection of the source you use, without personal extrapolation.

In any case, thanks for starting the discussion and happy editing! Leventio (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great! I'll make a few edits along those lines. I don't think that we're saying different things with respect to the outcome for the Huron-Wendat, it's more a difference in tone. I think that we can agree that they were killed, dispersed or forcibly adopted into the Haudenosaunee nations. Mcollinge (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cottage country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Combat_uniform#Canada Dreddmoto (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the recent edits there. They are helpful. I've been looking for good quality images of CADPAT to help with doing illustrations and making military models that are to be painted. I would like to refer others to those images. Photographs of CADPAT AR are particularly useful. How about adding one more to the CADPAT article? Perhaps this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canadians,_Marines_training_AAV%27s_130619-M-FJ247-007.jpg because it shows boonie hats? --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: I've added a multiple image template for the AR section and swapped out the image you found with the older one. I've also included another image that provides the clearest image of the actual AR patern itself (keeping in mind of the article topic, at least one image should be highlighting the pattern itself as opposed to any specific dress/clothing.... that said if you find another image that better highlights what the pattern design is, feel free to swap it again).

That said though, if I'm being honest, I am hesistant towards adding anymore images into this article, given its small size, it is already quite image heavy. A WikiCommon's link already exists and is more sufficient for referring people who are interested in finding more images about the topic. Leventio (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks very much! I realise that the article is image heavy but, it's very helpful. I'm not very advanced when painting and this can help. I don't think that or the Combat uniform article needs another CADPAT image. You've been a big help not only choosing but also arranging the photographs. That multiple image template was also useful because I've not used that for edits in other articles, so now I can learn how to do it.

The only related question is regarding the introduction of the Combat uniform article. One day commons might have a good photograph of multiple kinds of combat uniforms, including a plain green or plain khaki example alongside camouflaged uniforms. In that case, should such an image go with or replace the current image in the introduction? --Dreddmoto (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: Always happy to help!

With regards to the combat uniform article, I also think the lead image should be swapped out (preferably with something that showcased multiple combats). There should be some avalible in the Commons, though it might require some digging (probably a few categorized under NATO or international military exercises like RIMPAC). Leventio (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. I'll post a section about this on the talk page of that article. If I find such an image I'll put a link to it on that page. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leventio, regarding the lead image in that article. I posted that section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Combat_uniform#Introduction_photograph on 22 January and your view would be appreciated there. I'll put links in that section, to images that I'm considering. --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your view regarding my suggestion of 20 July 2023 would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Combat_uniform#Introduction_photograph --Dreddmoto (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hey, Leventio! I just noticed that you contributed significantly to making the entry on Queen's University a good article. I'm pursuing a PhD at Queen's. The article might have well influenced my decision to apply to study here. Just wanted to thank you for all your great work. Keep it up! Nataev talk 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I hope you enjoy your time in Queens! Leventio (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-named the viceregal subsection, to better reflect the images (a majority of which are the monarch) & the content, which has quite a bit of info about the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to the Military history of Canada article. Looking so good I see GA/FA run. GREAT JOB!!!Moxy- 22:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Thanks a bunch! I was planning on submitting it to GOCE after a bit more editing/trimming. Leventio (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coronation Medal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extensive copyediting you've done at Coronation of Charles III and Camilla. I know it's tedious work, but it's much appreciated! Feel free to remove this message once you've read it. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope: Thanks! I've noticed you put in a lot of work refining the article layout itself. The article looks much better because of it! Leventio (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of MOS:OL on my edit to the section List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla#Uninvited_states. I was not aware of the overlinking issue, will keep in mind for the future!

Thanks,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I do agree with you that several of the Commonwealth sections are very short, but thinking long-term it's probably best to keep the article structured as it is so that other editors are encouraged to flesh out those sections and create ones for the remaining realms/members. Introducing thematic sections could get messy (in fact the UK and Canada's subsections are already a bit dubious). I do appreciate your work, as ever! A.D.Hope (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope: Honestly, my issue with it was making sure it abides by MOS guidelines (I get the desire for section consistency, but the MOS is king). In hindsight though, I could have just went about it by fleshing out the sections instead.

That said, I was planning to consolidate the indigenous leaders section into a general lead paragraph for the section, seeing as how it somewhat goes against the nation-based sectioning (i.e. similar to how there is a general summative for the ceremony section). Thoughts? Leventio (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we can probably interpret the article to be an exception to 'short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings'. We can reasonably expect more to be added to the short sections, and we don't want to imply a hierarchy between the realms by giving some subsections but not others.

I think your lead idea is a good one, and I see you've already incorporated it. Putting information about Indigenous responses first definitely seems better than tacking it on at the end, it sets a precedent if there's other news involving several realms. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair, and I get that sentiment. Its sort of why I didn't really push back on it, and just resorted to expanding them. Anyways, happy editing! Leventio (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rankings of universities in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Mary's University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Vancouver Art Gallery, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, considering the recent Vegas Golden Knights Stanley Cup win, I think that that article could probably be promoted to a GA with no work and possibly an FA with a little effort. You're a signifiant contributor to the article, so I would just like to let you know. The fork was never found. Wow. I died laughing. I might nominate it at TFA; it hasn't appeared on the Main Page yet. Wow that's a good article. Cessaune [talk] 11:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cessaune: The article certainly has the potential to be promoted (its really only needs citations for unsupported sentences, alt tags for images), and I'd be more than happy to help out and take it through the GA-process!

That said, if I'm being honest, for that article, my contributions have primarily just been WikiGnome formatting work and images. I believe User:The Kip is the one who actually added the glut of the content in that article, so it might be more appropriate for Kip to start that process (unless they'd rather not be the one initiating the nom). (ps: the last sentence of Tarrare really is a masterpiece of sorts) Leventio (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cessaune @Leventio I've since greatly expanded the season summaries to an appropriate level of detail (no longer simply one line each, but not excessively in-depth either), and I've decided to nominate it for GA. Thanks for the suggestion and let's see where this goes! The Kip (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the "thanks" button but I wanted to do it personally too—apologies for the Matthews oversight and thanks for cleaning it up! I think I need a nap... Wracking ^talk! 01:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens to the best of us! Leventio (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Homeless Jesus. Great job. Thanks for work well done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Thanks for your work on Homeless Jesus.

Putting When I Was Sick on your radar, in case you're interested.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto When I Was Naked ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer Same to you. Your great work with public art in Toront hasn't gone unnoticed on this end, so thank you for that!

Regarding those articles, I expanded the When I Was Naked article just a bit. I can help expand the other one later this weekend. Leventio (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, and thanks for your kind words. I enjoyed seeing a lot of Toronto's public art recently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit on College (Canada) § Quebec (December 2020), you added duplicate content. Please be more careful, namely, if you're moving content, make sure to read what's already there. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!!!! So let me know when YOUR ready for a GA run for Military history of Canada....more then ready in my view . More then willing to help with GA review concerns and can ask a few others to jumpin. Moxy- 23:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy Haha, I've been sorta neglecting the article for the past few months admittingly! I just added the last bit in there and have (finally) submitted the article to the GOCE for copyediting Leventio (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military history of Cuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leventio. Thank you for your work on Cadets (youth program). ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work on this page. Happy holidays!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Bearskin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Busby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official news from TSN confirming the signing. https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/oilers-agree-to-deal-with-veteran-forward-corey-perry-1.2065754 192.34.226.114 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@192.34.226.114: Per the source, "TSN's Ryan Rishaug can confirm that the two sides have agreed to a contract with an official announcement likely coming on Monday."

Per WP:SPECULATION and WP:SPORTSTRANS, as well as WP:HOCKEY consensus, we do not report on sports transactions that stem from speculative sports sourcing until an official announcement has been made. Leventio (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urban parks in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation authority.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—for linking to Tarrare#Death on your userpage. It's a public service, really. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the exact same thought, @Cremastra! And it so happened that I was eating while I read it! Nataev ^talk 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataev: And it so happened that I was eating while I read it! Oh God, I'm so sorry. /lh 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can to spread the gospel that is Tarrare Leventio (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I was wondering if you could take a look at my recent revisions on the entry on Queen's University at Kingston. I wonder if I've formulated everything right. Nataev ^talk 19:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataev: Looks great! I just did some minor copyediting and expounded a bit on the top 15 part. Leventio (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you! Nataev ^talk 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone not me warned you to stop damaging the site. Let me adjust the article, yes, I do know about the ise spelling. I'll make sure it's ise when I finish. You are being petulant, desist. Summerdays1 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: You mean you?

If your edit is constructive, then it'll be left alone. However, misspelling words in an article that uses a different variant of English is not a proper adjustment, and will be reverted by any user. Leventio (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about listening. You said to which, the saying is to wit. You have never said what size you think the article should be.You are unwilling to acknowledge that you could be totally in error. If you look at Wikipedia, when it mentions events in multiple locations it's not "trimmed" as you say. I probably will have to take you to an admin. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: Just like I told you its -ise, not -ize in British English. But unlike you, I'm asking you to actually address the substance of my query, not fixating on a spelling mistakes that we've both made. Additionally, I actually did concede on the dating, which is why I restored that. You've yet to provide any reason for restoring the other ones though, so if anything, it seems you can't acknowledge any fault on your own mindset.

Also, I've already pointed to you MULTIPLE discussions in the talk page archive has raised the issue, as well as just general adherence to WP:ARTICLESIZE. But go ahead and bring an admin in. Leventio (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even understanding what is involved in splitting an article. I didn't misspell. I was reverting out of convenience to edit and then going back and putting the ise spelling back. You said it's not important that the cannons were from 1810 or British, both are pertinent. It's not substantially changing and certainly not improving the article to leave that out. I told you that you could leave out the short phrase with cenotaph. Summerdays1 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an error. To which is not misspelling it's just wrong. It is to wit. Summerdays1 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1:Two of your reversions were literally to ONLY restore the -ize variant of spelling, and not the earlier edit. Additionally, you're seemingly missing the substance of the conversation and are just fixating on a mistake of singular sentence (a sentence, that you seemingly got the substance of anyhow if you were able to correct). So the need to fixate on a mistake that has nothing to do with the subject is just odd, but you do you I guess.

As regading the substance of the conversation, I keep asking you to provide a rational for their pertinence, as well as for details like HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984, but you've yet to do so. I'm trying to see why you think its pertient, but you're not providing me a reason to understand your viewpoint, youve just been telling me to stop. That's not a reason (also fyi, I restored the 1810 dating pretty early on in the discussion, and even said that in our talk page discussion, but I feel like you might of missed that...). Leventio (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is watching, obviously. Here is what I tried to tell you. One, you said there are 23 sites. Could you list each of the edits here and what you changed? Summerdays1 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two, taking out those phrases does a disservice to the article. Summerdays1 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: Okay great. But when you say Here is what I tried to tell you, maybe actually try telling me what you've been trying to tell me (like I've been asking, y'know... your rationale for their inclusion) instead of just saying what you thought I said the sentence after...

And firstly, I said 23 other mentions, not sites, which specifically was about the 23 other mentions of gun salutes throughout that article which do not provide as great of a detail of their guns make or age, or any other superfluous details on their firings. That was in relation to my point of why those two specific Canadian gun salutes are such an exception from the other 23 mentioned in the article that they need that much excess detail (a rationale you've yet to provide). You can use the ctrl+F feature to find these mentions in that article yourself. Also, I've done over a hundred if not 200+ edits on that article, so no. I'm not going to provide you with an exhaustive list of changes I made and why (especially if you're not going to be forthcoming with the only question I've asked of you, which is provide me a rationale)

Now, for what seems to be the 100th time of me asking can you provide me any rationale for why things like "in her honour" and her visiting that site in 1984 are necessary? I already provided you my arguments that the "in her honour" part isn't necessary as that entire section pertains to events "in her honour" so its redundant, and that she has visited the majority of sites that are hosting commemorations (as she is one of the world's most travelled people), and is something that is beside the point of the 2022 event (as that discusses an event that happened). In summary, this is excess that is contributing to the article bloat that multiple others have pointed to (not to mention just the fact these are undue in detail for the overall topic).

In turn, I keep asking for your own rationale multiple times, but you've yet to provide one. We can all see you think its a disservice, I'm asking for the rationale of why you think so. If you actually brought this to the attention of the admin, I'm sure they're wondering why you aren't addressing the questions I keep asking. Leventio (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over 200? I merely asked you to leave two phrases alone. I'll ask you again provide what the article said before and what you changed it to or what you propose it to be. Not for 200 edits, how about for one edit? Maybe five? Or if you think 23 mentions is too much make a table. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: In the same vein you say I have no right to X, you have no right to tell people to leave things alone. This is a collaborative open project.

Also, I'm not sure if you viewed the actual talk page or article in the past bit, but I already stated what I changed in the article talk page an hour ago. To reiterate what I said,

Okay, refocusing this conversation back to the actual sentence in question (and bringing this discussion back to this talk page, as opposed to my own), I personally think this can be surmised with "Two gun salutes were organised in Westmount and Prescott. But for the sake of compromise, I've restored the British-made and 1810 (as I already said I did in my earlier comment), however, I removed the other excess details (ie. in honour of, because again, this entire section deals with events being in honour of EII, as well as the 1984 details and specific locations of on the lawn). Are we happy now...

Using the original sentences, I'll show you what I struck out:

Two British-made bronze cannons from 1810 were fired in Westmount, Quebec in honour of Elizabeth II. In Fort Wellington, Prescott, Ontario, a 96 round salute was fired by guns on the lawn between the fort and the cenotaph. HM the Queen had visited the site in 1984.

I've already reincluded the British cannons and 1810 in an attempt to compromise with you. And have added it in the article as follows:

Commemorative events on 18 September included a march at Ottawa's Major's Hill Park by the Ottawa Corgis dog group and the Sons of Scotland Pipe Band, and the firing of two refurbished British cannons made in 1810 in Westmount, Quebec.

and then

Moments of silence were held across several provinces on 19 September, with several transit operators having paused their operations for 96 seconds to coincide with the moment of silence. A 96-gun salute was also organised in Prescott, Ontario.

Is this to your satisfaction? Or did you want all the original content included. In which case I go back to my earlier question (and honestly the only one I keep asking of you), provide me your rationale for why its necessary. Leventio (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that's good. But include Fort Wellington by name. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! Leventio (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: Keep in mind of our compromise, where you seemingly agreed with this trimming. So I do not know why you decided to reinsert HM the Queen had visited the fort in 1984. without any rationale. Leventio (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding any of that paragraph. From the start I mentioned out of the 23 places by your count, two were key due to connections to the monarch or her country. The Queen went to the fort which is why it was held there. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: And she has also visited the majority of the sites in which commemorations are taking place. Why is this the exceptional circumstance that we must state this again? This section is focused on discussing the actual commemorations that have taken place in these areas, not their wider historical circumstances of its relation to the Queen (keeping in mind of notability/significance and proportionality guidelines brought up by other users in the talk page discussion).

As you stated earlier here, Fine, that's good. But include Fort Wellington by name, I thought we reached an amicable compromise. But if you no longer agree with that, I'm done talking with you on a one-on-one basis. Bring this conversation back to the article's talk page so we can reach a consensus with all the article's other editors. Leventio (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I see you have a large interest in contributing to the article. I don't understand why a mention about a visit being anything unusual. You were trying to get this article to a smaller size; not sure that's been happening at all. Now you want to make a big event from one mention of one trip. I could say the Queen didn't travel that often. Please add whatever thoughts you have on the talk page for the article. I suppose you could add here too what you are thinking. I haven't made many comments at all on this page. I think a few items are important and if you were to pull up other articles you would see they have them too. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerdays1: Again, I've already provided my rationale on that talk page and here, while you've yet to provide any rationale for any of your actions. Again, I'm done talking to you here as we're just going in circles of me providing you my rationale and you not doing so. Bring your rationale and this discussion back to the article talk page so other editors can help us reach a consensus. Leventio (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't me. You have been warned. Summerdays1 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay there. Leventio (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But just a note that neither The Walrus' research, nor Andreas Zeising's seminal research on Ferdinand Eckhardt, claims that Eckhardt was a member of the Nazi party. The research concerns his involvement in, and articles for, Nazi-affiliated organizations and journals -- but not party membership as such. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one worth making. Thank you, all the same, for your work on this; I've made the appropriate update.

RustbeltRooster (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RustbeltRooster: Thanks for making the update. In saying that, I didn't add that content.

The edit I made concerning that content was only to move it from a stand-alone section into the existing history section. :The content was added by User:Eli185.2 in the edit prior to mines (see the edit diff here). Cheers! Leventio (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, understood. :) RustbeltRooster (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]