User talk:Icewhiz/Archive 3

Historiography on fighter aces

Hi, I'm familiar with some of the literature listed in the Fritz Lüddecke along with the sources on German aces in general. I could offer more info here, instead of the AfD, so that not to make the thread too long. If you'd be open to it, it would be great. If not, that's cool and will just post a short reply there. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: - I'm guessing you will say (and if you do - you're right - you're a bigger authority than me in terms of these authors (frankly - I'm impressed by your knowledge in the area)) that these are pseudo-historians writing under an alias? I'm definitely open to hearing. I do however think we should have an article - even if it is stubby.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being open to hearing more. My experience has been that non senior commanders, even if highly decorated, usually lack sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The discussion at Notability:People arrived at the same conclusion. The types of sources used in the articles that have been redirected fall roughly in these categories:

1. Phaleristics-oriented catalogues of award winners and their respective decorations; I consider these to be primary sources and not sufficient for establishing notability.
2. Landser-pulp literature, also known as Landser Hefte, which aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Franz Kurowski is the prime example of such authors; see for example Infantry Aces. I also created The Blond Knight of Germany, just for the heck of it. :-)
3. Deliberate historical distortions, published by authors such as the fringe Richard Landwehr and various authors affiliated with HIAG, the post-war Waffen-SS lobby group in West Germany. In the German language, these works are generally published by far-right and extremist publishers such as the Türmer Verlag, the Arndt Verlag, and the Pour le Mérite Verlag, among others.

In North America, Group 2 & 3 titles are being published by J.J. Fedorowicz and Schiffer Publishing. Some eventually find their way into more widely available publications by Osprey, for example. Schiffer Publishing, in particular, seems to have published a lot of Luftwaffe-related titles. Some of these titles have origins in war-time propaganda, see for example Talk:Helmut_Wick#Tags, where a Schiffer pub was initially defended, until I was able to show that this "work" could largely be traced to NS propaganda.

Specific to the sources listed in Lüddecke article:

• Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000) [1986] -- a catalogue of Knight's Cross winners. A primary source that provides only names, date of decoration, and not much else.
• Obermaier, Ernst (1989)-- a POV-driven tribute to the Knight's Cross winners of the Luftwaffe, specifically its fighter force. Obermaier is best known for producing hagiographic accounts on the Luftwaffe fighter aces, and has no credibility.
• Patzwall, Klaus D.; Scherzer, Veit (2001) -- another catalogue of awards recipients, this time those who had been awarded the German Cross.
• Scherzer, Veit (2007) -- yet another catalogue of Knight's Cross winners; here's a sample from Feldgrau.net forum. Not a suitable source for notability.

My conclusion is that there are insufficient reliable sources for NPOV articles on most German aces of WW2. The articles I come across are either unsourced or consist of nothing but an infobox and a list of awards. Some have been closely paraphrased from Aces of the Luftwaffe, a POV driven fan site. It's best, IMO, to have the names redirect to a list. What's your take? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I agree with much of what you wrote, though perhaps differ in tone. I will note that I do not doubt that some of the continuing coverage is nazi or neo-nazi motivated. But not all - some (I would say most) of it caters for various aficionados - from war buffs to the more modern phenomena of gaming (and flight simulators).

We do have similar material for non-Nazi pilots - from WWI (where quite arguably the air-war had very little significance, yet was widely covered) , through non-German (Allied and Axis alike) WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab wars, etc. This is generating on-going coverage. It's not only books. It also TV series (someone has to fill up the "History channel" which others have called "The Hitlet Channel) ([1])), computer games, memorabilia, and on-line fan sites of various sorts.

I do think that much of this material is verifiable, and that while hagiographical (or a villification) - it can can be NPOVed.

The real question, is what do we do as editors on Wikipedia. There are two choices in mind -

• Delete this - meaning continuing deletion discussions, combating re-insertion of this from other avenues (e.g. someone creating "aerial engagement of JG51/III over X"), and directing traffic on this individuals (who are getting traffic 70+ years on) off of Wikipedia (because people who will look this up - will get the hits from the fan site up on their list)
• Keep it - but tone it down, keep it NPOV. Often times this will result in a short article - with still verifiable information.

I prefer the latter. I prefer that modern neo-Nazis (and close fans) and more importantly run of the mill aficionados and kids get their information from Wikipedia (following editorial oversight by our non-Nazi (vast-vast majority at least not) editor base) - than from some fan-site whose motivation is.... Suspect. I think I understand your POV - but I think it is better to have this on Wikipedia (for figures that are generating interest 70 years later!) - rather than have this in all sorts of dark corners of the internet. I prefer to have it here - he was in X, flew Y missions, killed Z aircraft, won so and so medals, a few notable encounters perhaps, and death - than to have it all trumped up elsewhere (and sometimes on the side - pushing a very not nice agenda, sometimes merely repeating previous agenda that they are sourcing from) - that's my POV on editing this.

Back when I was in my childhood and teens - I was engrossed in all things flight related, including aerial combat. I read many books on the subject (while aerial warfare still interests me - I haven't read such items in a long time) - from more serious books on the technical aspects of flight, through aircraft catalogs, and accounts on aerial warfare (which range from the serious through the popular description of engagements - and often a mix of the two). Back then - the online scene wasn't as developed - but reflecting on myself - if I were a ten year old today, would I be reading those books? Or would I be getting this info from Wikipedia or a fan site? Would I read the fan site more if it were off-wiki?

In terms of Wikipedia policy - you could justify either view. They both have merit. The question is not policy - but what is right to do.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also a third option -- redirect to a list. If someone locates sources that would allow for an NPOV article, then great -- restore the article with the new sources. The content you are suggesting -- he was in X, flew Y missions, killed Z aircraft, won so and so medals, and death -- can fit into a couple of sentences, and can be presented on the list. There's "list notability" (the name appears in an encyclopedia on a list) and there's stand-alone notability. It's appears to be clear to me that there aren't sufficient sources for a stand-alone bio article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Having this as a redirect might or might not retain Wiki's Google ranking on this - but even if it does, I don't think anyone looking for information on these people would be satisfied from what's on the list - they'll just move on to the fan site who has this in highly biased detail. The current list article - List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L) doesn't have information on missions, air craft kills and other information (for instance - death in emergency landing, which is actually pretty well sourced here) - it would get cumbersome to fit this in for each medal recipient.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm guided by the WP:N principle that "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Where do you propose we source the details of their bios from? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For basic bio details, I would propose using the sourcing in there at present. I don't think this should be developed much beyond a stub (unless there is an additional unknown source).Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, we had a lengthy discussion on the notability of the Knight's Cross winners, and then an RFC on the aces:

• MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces.

Even though it was held in a non neutral venue, it failed to gain support. At the end of the day, an ace (military) is just a person who was good at his job and / or lucky to survive long enough to accumulate sufficient number of aircraft shot down, GRT sunk, etc to earn an award. We don't have articles on people who produced X numbers of widgets or mined Y tons of coal in their lifetime. That's my position, anyway. I'm curious why you brought up google rankings. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I see notability of the various "aces" (and military heros) as quite similar to notable athletes. Why is Floyd Mayweather Jr. featured in the In The News on Main_Page? Because he racked up a 50-0 win record. Isn't he just "good at his job"? Why is a business person who founded a multi-billion dollar company notable? Isn't he just good at his job? Tales (and actual accounts) of military exploits of individuals go back to Ancient times (e.g. Samson, Hercules, or Gilgamesh if we want to go to the mythical, Pheidippides for somewhat less). I mentioned google in context of the non-policy argument (and policy could go either way here, which is why I noted it) of whether Wikipedia comes up as the first source of information - or a fan or even a neo-Nazi site - I think it is preferable that at least innocent traffic ends up here and not in less reputable venues.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Given that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke closed as delete, would you agree that similar articles cover nn subjects and that their redirects should be restored? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On similarly sourced subjects, that would seem to be the expected result, yes. Note that sourcing for Luddecke was particularly weak.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: - I will not challenge similar redirects on the same sourcing level (in article + quick BEFORE for post-war (also non-books) and for war (mainly books)), however if there is coverage amounting to a few pages in RS books, I would object.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I could not find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources on the subjects, that’s why I had redirected them. Do you recall where you felt that the coverage was there for a stand-alone article, vs a redirect?

This list of Talk pages where we interacted could work as aide-mémoire. The bulk of the entries is where you responded to my “Notability” comment: Editor Interaction Analyser list.

Does this help? Are there any on the list that would object to being redirected? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note I'm doing this quickly on each one, mainly based on in-article + "google books" results (so we can discuss in greater detail ones we disagree on - this is rough triage)

No objection (I consider these similar to sourcing level for Fritz Lüddecke, and while another AFD (in which I would vote Keep on most) may yield other results, I concede the point): Karl Willius Horst Patuschka Walther Wever (pilot) Wilhelm Philipp Alexander Preinfalk Heinz Golinski Johann Pichler Peter Kalden Otto Gaiser Kurt Knappe Friedrich Rupp Edmund Wagner Edwin Thiel Hans-Joachim Heyer Otto Tange Helmut Schönfelder Wilhelm Mink Lutz-Wilhelm Burckhardt Reinhold Hoffmann Josef Pöhs Berthold Graßmuck Hermann Wolf Wilhelm Freuwörth Karl-Wilhelm Hofmann Hans Fuß Ulrich Wöhnert Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart Helmut Rüffler Detlev Rohwer Alfred Franke Günter Fink Ludwig Häfner Heinz Hackler Heinrich-Wilhelm Ahnert Heinz-Gerhard Vogt Max-Hermann Lücke Erwin Laskowski Werner Quast Hugo Dahmer Jürgen Brocke Franz Barten Johannes Bunzek Wolfgang Böwing-Treuding Johann Badum Ernst Andres

Better sourced / other grounds for notability, need to see in AFD/discuss: Herbert Huppertz Rudolf Pflanz Siegfried Simsch Hans Strelow Horst Tietzen Josef Kociok Max Stotz Diethelm von Eichel-Streiber Hans Ehlers Herbert Kutscha Robert Olejnik (pilot) Hugo Broch Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland Georg Schentke Erwin Clausen Rolf Pingel Rolf Pingel Herbert Kaiser Hans Götz Hubert Strassl Anton Resch Gerhard Loos Helmut Mertens Franz Hrdlicka Ernst Börngen Heinrich Klöpper Bernd Gallowitsch Alfred Teumer Klaus Quaet-Faslem Anton Lindner Karl Kempf Rudolf Müller (pilot) Hans-Joachim Kroschinski Eduard Isken Heinrich Krafft Joachim Wandel Karl-Heinz Bendert Gustav Frielinghaus Friedrich Wachowiak Viktor Petermann Viktor Petermann Emil Omert Herbert Findeisen Ernst Düllberg Kurt Dombacher Fritz Dinger Paul-Heinrich Dähne Albert Brunner Max Bucholz Walter Brandt (pilot) Franz Beyer (pilot) Anton BenningIcewhiz (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 London Bridge attack - edit war

Your recent editing history at June 2017 London Bridge attack 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.Sport and politics (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Icewhiz. You have new messages at Sport and politics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Third Opinion Dispute Resolution Notice

I have asked for a Third Opinion resolution to our dispute. The request is here. You do not need to do anything. This is simply a notice. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You probably need one after surviving that POV avalanche. Drink up; almost all of the discussions have been closed. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed RfC

My deepest apologies -- somehow I missed that, don't know how. Thanks for reverting. --Yalens (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, I think you forgot to sign your comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Sinebot used to take care of this lickity split, but not lately. Signed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by IP

Stop editing/deleting articles to fit your political biases. This is not an Israeli News Channel or Fox News. We are suppose to be neutral. No need to delete paragraphs which have sourced information.

Please sign your comments, and take this to the article talk page. Sourcing is not enough (particularly when using a highly biased source). Read WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, which the above comment could be construed as such.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Landmine

Thanks for the feedback - I'm guessing that I was unable to find any information due to the fact that the article's creator used the incorrect name for the landmine (is it Joni 95 or Jony 95?). I am not a military ordinance expert by any means but I'm thinking that it might be best to create an article for Tamil Tiger landmines or Sri Lankan landmines and the merge the information from Jonny landmine and Rangan 99 as subsections - what are your thoughts (as you appear to know more about this than me). BTW is the Jony 99 the same as the Rangan 99? Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: There are a number of variant spellings for the Joni, indeed (including the slang the article creator used). I would keep the Rangan 99 (or Joni 99) separate article - possibly merging to the Pakistani source mine (which doesn't seem to exist, we do have P3 Mk2 mine, but not the p4). It is possible perhaps to create a Tamil Tiger landmine (or wider IED) article - covering implements, tactics, and possibly subsequent de-mining - but this should probably be done by an expert in the Tamil area or someone who is willing to go deep. I don't see any harm in a standalone Joni 95 article - weapon systems with designations are usually notable for standalone. We could clean up the current article, and keep it as a tidy little stub.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist in cleaning up the current article but as previously stated I'm a novice at military articles. Is there any articles that we could use as a bit of a template? Dan arndt (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: POMZ, BLU-43 Dragontooth, S-mine, VS-50 mine.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Icewhiz. Thank you for your note on my talkpage. I opened a report at ANI regarding the disruption by Mhhossein. Dr. K. 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

US Dollar

Dear Icewhiz, thank you for the information you have given regarding the wiki article on the US Dollar. Per wiki policy Talking and editing Policy:

"Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate."

I would respectfully request that you do not edit the existing consensus without following the wiki policy on editing. Thank you very much. Kind regards.

I do not see a consensus to support describing us currency as a commodity currency. In fact, this would seem grossly misleading. This position, amongst editors, seems to be supported by yourself only. The prior stable version was to simply describe as fiat (which despite the legal history, in the actual situation in the past few decades).Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

First it is nice to meet you and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, like you I think the article could be greatly improved. For some time I have felt that the article is attempting to address multiple issues which is causing confusion and strife. However it is my understanding that this specific article is addressing a United States dollar "per the Constitution", if we proceed with that understanding then I think a consensus and a more specific consensus is not that difficult.

The current consensus I believe has existed more or less for years (i.e. addressing that a dollar is based in silver). It is true that I have watched you and others attempt to change that consensus over time but I believe the long existing consensus by many, not just myself, at least for this article, has been that a US dollar per the Constitution has been based in silver. The use of the word commodity does not have its origin in me, it was there before I ever noticed the article. Personally I do not like the use of the term commodity, it brings in an element of economics which I personally do not feel is really relevant to the Constitutional creation of the dollar.

But for the moment I am more interested in listening to you and what you want to change the article to and why. What do you think is a dollar per the US Constitution? How would you write it up and why? The talk page is already full of the views I think are correct. I sincerely would like to know what you think is incorrect about the current article. Kind regards 186.71.169.87 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

First - as a side note - I suggest you create an account - you'll find it is easier to communicate and that you will face less "anti-IP bias" (which is not right, but.... Wikipedia:IPs are human too). Editing as an IP works if you're doing small fixes, or even big ones - but tends to be less efficient when engaging in discussion.

Regarding the article - it is about the US currency - not its constitutional status (which is actually quite limited - [2]. The dollar is currently Fiat (a process that began with fractional reserves, continued through Bretton Woods system, and following Nixon shock - any pretense of this being non-Fiat is long gone).

The article consensus, as might be seen in an old version here - [3] - is that the dollar is stated as Fiat in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice I will look into it.

The "consensus" and "prior stable version" that you have made reference to existed for all of about 11 hours? Why, therefore, do you attempt to pass off the consensus is that the US dollar has been "fiat" as you state? I don't understand why believe that the article states this, clearly it does not and has not.

I do no understand your position given that you quote (your reference 1) the Constitution which clearly indicates that the United States "money" can be "coined". Money "coined" I think you would agree is by definition not "fiat". Currently it is my understanding that the US Treasury only coins money and issues no paper, electronic or anything other than "coined" money.

The article is entitled "US Dollar" the leading sentence follows as: "The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$ and referred to as the dollar, U.S. dollar, or American dollar) is the official currency of the United States and its insular territories per the United States Constitution." Under US law the word "dollar" is a Constitutional term which law is the supreme law of the United States. When you see the words "per the Constitution" why do you then tell me the article is not bout the US dollar "per the Constitution"? If we are talking about the US dollar and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how can we have any other discussion than about a dollar per the US Constitution? Why would you even think the article could be about anything otherwise?

I hope you do not think I am being dismissive I really would like to understand what you are trying to communicate to me. I will repeat my requests from before: "But for the moment I am more interested in listening to you and what you want to change the article to and why. What do you think is a dollar per the US Constitution? How would you write it up and why? I sincerely would like to know what you think is incorrect about the current article."

Lastly you state "The dollar is currently Fiat (a process that began with fractional reserves, continued through Bretton Woods system, and following Nixon shock - any pretense of this being non-Fiat is long gone)." Do you have any references for such assertions? These assertions seem to me to be very opposed to what the article has long stated. But I will wait to judge based on your comments. This discussion I think would be beneficial to all so I am moving it to the article talk page. Thank you. 186.71.169.87 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop hounding me

It appears that you are hounding me from page to page. Please get informed that "if following another user around is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Try not interfere in the pages which have nothing to do with you. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Please WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I am not hounding you. I have interacted with you in Ali Khamenei, and AE is on my watchlist. From a brief look at our joint editing history - I have actually interacted hardly at all with you. If you post an AE complaint, you should expect other involved editors to comment - and I have been actively editing the page and the talk page of Ali Khamenei.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that you are supporting an editor adding clear WP:OR to the article. Your comments on the AE are irregular. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not endorse all of the actions of Psychonot, merely the particular allegations of 1RR.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz. These allegations of hounding are groundless. Given that the OP has recently accused you of sockpuppetry for no reason, you may want to take this to ANI as a case for harassment. Dr. K. 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: - I mentioned this comment as well at the AE complaint (as it was clearly in response to it - 6 minutes after I commented there) - best to let AE run its course first.Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz. Given the admin's comments there, this may be closed soon. Next step may have to be ANI. Dr. K. 06:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I believe that comment is in error - Iran/Israel post 1979 and Iran's nuclear program in particular are clearly ARBPIA - even though Iranians are not technically Arab. So I don't think it will close on that - but we'll see.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about the ARB/PIA applicability. Ok. No problem. Let's see. Dr. K. 06:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why DR.K. has forgot the comment from the admin tacitly warning him not to bait me. Anyway, feel free to open an ANI, if you think I deserve it. I'm not sure about the outcome, though! @Icewhiz: Please prohibit from making further accusations. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please note, pinging icon with comment was added by Mhhossein in the reply just above, after Dr.K.'s reply below. Dr. K. 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You either have a language problem, or you are simply continuing your fact-free WP:BATTLE attacks. The admin never said that I was baiting you at ANI. Just in case, you should go and ask the admin what he meant by that comment. I am sure he was satisfied with my answer, that's why he did not challenge my reply. In any case, why do you think I am baiting you when I commented about your continuing WP:HARASSMENT of Icewhiz? Dr. K. 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - I respectfully suggest you retract your various allegations (and "prohibitions"? I'm assuming that's a typo) here. Accusing someone of WP:HOUNDING is a rather serious charge, and should be done with a sound basis.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, keeping on this time and energy wasting discussion may not bring a suitable outcome to you. However, in response to your comment please note that accusations toward me such as the "Canvassing" one "is a rather serious charge", too. I'm not going to prove that it was an appropriate notification, you can do it if you like. Clear? regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: A clear outright diff was provided to said charge of CANVASSING (of you pinging a very specific editor to join in a content dispute) - a charge I must note others have made [4] prior to me. In any event, I understand from your lack of apology nor even a retraction that you stand by your original comment. If you wish to clarify - I suggest you do so.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As the latest ANI showed, this account is incapable of admitting any errors or apologise for his baseless attacks against other editors. Only another report at ANI has a chance of rectifying this. But this is your call Icewhiz. Dr. K. 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I had asked you not to hound me. Please consider this request. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I am not hounding you. Please WP:NPA, and cease and desist with these serious, yet completely baseless allegations - of which you've made several. You might be surprised, but not everything is about you - where I commented was a page which was on my watchlist due to an ongoing discussion on a totally different issue.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  To make thing clear - please expect your conduct to be reported next time you make a personal attack or baseless accusation, of which there have been several.Icewhiz (talk)

  I'm not willing to waste my energy on such a thing, but be sure that I'll do the same next time you hound me. See your only edit here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not that I owe you an explaination for any of my edits, however I will note I was having a discussion with his alternate account, as you may see here - [5] and I watch paged both. Not everything is about you. You should probably also brush up on what wp:hounding means before making such allegations. If you intend to continue personallly attacking me, expect this to be reported.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. Please note that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered WP:PA, too. Add it to the list please. To avoid such tensions you could simply avoid that comment. I don't welcome ANI (since it's energy wasting), but am fully ready to respond where ever required. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but please read what that means:

From WP:NOTCENSORED "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." Doug Weller talk 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is this in relation to my comment here regarding the Las Vegas Shooting? [6]? I wrote that since the previous arguements to mine referred to the terrorist nature of IS and that publication of this claim would "The material could cause harm to the family, and only benefits ISIS." (there were a number of similar subsequent comments of this nature, and this has also been a line of arguement in other terror incidents on wiki in the past uear - basically boiling down to "IS is bad, lets not promote them" (I agree with the former, the latter seems to be driven by non-wiki standards). Thanks for pointing out the policy, rereading is helpful!Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was, I'm afraid I get tired of people quoting it who are thinking it means anything can be included. Not suggesting that was clearly what you meant but I wasn't sure. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It is definitely misused. I thought that referring to anti IS advocacy as wp:soap would be crass.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey

I have put the RFC on a temporal stay and has reformatted it for easy parsing by the future closure.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar fix

Could you please fix the grammar per this comment [7] thanks Shrike (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: - sorry - what do you want me to fix? The grammar in the article? The comment doesn't seem to refer to the grammar (but rather to assertions against the Jewish status of the site). While I am very sloppy in writing, I can do copy-editing (not as sloppy when reviewing in contrast to my writing) - but I'm not great at it.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This one [The formation of Jewish sacred place was based on the argument that many Jewish sacred burials were Islamized during history of the region. maybe rephrase it better per the source [8] thanks--Shrike (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try to take a stab at this in appprox. 6 hours when I am on a PC.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: - done. I modified a few other aspects, including clarifying its current use and name.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Seraphim System, moved from user page

Can you please let other editors discuss? I really do not want to discuss my edits with only you. You do not respect sources, you do not post sources for your claims and you edit war. There are other articles, I am trying to improve this one and there are enough eyes on it that we can live without the back and forth - our styles are not really compatible, I don't like spending a lot of time on forum like discussions that are not based on WP:RS. I have asked you MANY times to follow WP:FORUM - an IBAN will be an hassle but I want other editors to have a chance to comment and I think the back and forth turns them off, thanks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I responded in ANI after you mentioned me by name. I also responded to an attempted OUTING as well as other comments regarding me. In Talk:Turkey, I believe you posted more comments than any other contributor, myself included.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was on my mobile, anyway, you have said OUTING like 5 times, so I should probably reply. I don't think OUTING can apply in a situation where we have never had any private communications and you have never disclosed anything to me that is not publicly known. Since we have already discussed this, and since I struck the comment when I realized I had mixed you up with USer:Debresser who was involved in the same discussion - saying OUTING over and over again is ... well, it is what it is. I'm not saying I never want to talk to you again, but I want a chance to hear input from other editors based on WP:RS, I don't think the back and forth directly between us has been productive, and I'm not sure why after Israel you have developed such an interest in reverting my edits on multiple articles, but I kind of miss having conversations with other editors. So I'm asking you to please give me some space for some time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A 3rd party would not know what, if at all, contact we had. Information may also be gathered without the knowledge of the target. Posting false or unverified personal information is outing as well. In any event, attempted outing aside (quite serious unto itself), if you mention me at ANI, expect a response. I have reverted you mainly on Turkey, in which other editors reverted you as well, which was added to my watchlist following the RfC. Regarding your recent edit in Turkey introducing neocol with no sources, I look forward to examining RSes you will provide.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You can examine whatever citations I have but continues attempts to force me into unproductive one on one discussions that are not based on WP:RS are going to result in Dispute Resolution. Per your edit summary, I don't need to have edits approved before editing, and while I respect WP:BRD I am asking that you allow other editors a chance to revert and discuss. As you said, there are enough people working on this article, and our one on one interaction has gotten to a point where I think it is detrimental to the talk page because it makes it very difficult for other editors to follow the discussion. This has been an ongoing problem with your misrepresenting sources, and not following guidelines on WP:PRIMARY and WP:CRYSTAL as well as copious un-sourced political commentary that clutters the talk page - I don't really want to continue engaging, or responding in kind because I think it is detrimental to consensus discussions and I don't really think your recent attempts to force yourself on an editor that you don't work well with is good practice, and I would really prefer some space to hear input from other editors on how to proceed. Sincerely, Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it is difficult to collaborate with an editor who continues to call a good faith mistake an "attempted outing." I think we have tried and it is clear that we do not work well together. I don't mind the occasional interaction or revert, but feeling like someone is watching my edits, even if it is only on one article does not feel like it is collaborative or in good faith. This is a big encyclopedia - we can even work on the same article separately, where you allow other regular editors to revert and discuss with me and work on different sections of the article. It may be that working with another editor on the same issue will yield a more productive outcome. I hope that makes sense. I want some space to discuss this article with other editors without your jumping on every edit I make or every comment I post on talk, I think I have given more then a fair and reasonable amount of time to your comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate you feel this way, and frankly I do not intend to interact too much with you, however perhaps it would be best you consider ceasing to edit Turkey's article in regards to its current form of gvmt if you feel this way. In any event, I would appreciate you comment on the article at hand, and not other issues or WP:NPA.Icewhiz (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If I feel "what" way? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I'm qualified to assess this, nor would I care to respond. You yourself used feel in your comment above Diff of Previous comment by Seraphim System, specifically but feeling like someone is watching my edits, even if it is only on one article does not feel like it is collaborative or in good faith, to which I responded in my edit above, as I prefer to avoid hurting the feelings of people. However, for any more detailed analysis of said feeling, I truly am not the address. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Permission

Hey, can I use this comment by you in my user page accompanying a diff to the edit? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I found it an "excessive unrelated content". Ignore the request, plz. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as you are quoting as is, I do not believe you need permission beyond attribution, but you may if you want. As to whether these words are heresay and the possible concerens of spreading thereof, that is not a concern of mine.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Dr. K. 22:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I want help

I want help I want to put the health article instead of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMEL_300-3 عرايبية بلال (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@عرايبية بلال: - what is missing is sources (doesn't have to be English - French, Arabic good too) - in WP:RS. As I see it the drone family might not pass WP:GNG (even though military kit usually does). I'm pretty sure each sub-variant doesn't pass GNG - unless I'm missing something big in sourcing. Please discuss in Talk:Amel (UAV). If you do have sources - I'll be happy to help adding them and text - I've worked on this topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@عرايبية بلال: Editorially - I would suggest first trying to "beef up" (sources and text) Amel (UAV) before addressing individual models / variants.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Please see the user's ip [9]. It is a "personal ip",i.e. proxy. The user admitted using proxies before, check [10][11]. And I wonder why one constantly needs to use proxies, if he/she is not socking? I don't think that s/he is sock of NorthBySouthBaranof but most probably s/he is sock of someone else. @Shrike: demonstrated the connection on the SPI case. But I think there are more accounts... 66.42.134.66 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but she also retired making this moot until and if she returns. There can be a number of reasons to use a proxy. In some universities it is actually quite common to use proxies (for access to journals, dbs, etc.). Also if you access Wikipedia from blocked countries, e.g. Turkey. In terms of user behaviour I do not recall seeing anything blatantly obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

He/she is not a brand new user, it is obvious. And his current activities targeting Israel[12] makes it plain that he is not here to contribute but attack a particular group or groups. Probably a COI editor, dunno. There is also WP:ACTING issue regarding this user. Despite almost all of his edits have Turkish nationalist character (check his edit-wars with @Khirurg, Avaya1, Dr.K., and EtienneDolet:) and his global contributions has demonstrated that he is very fluent in Turkish, he behaves like an American nationalist by putting the US flag on his user page and presenting himself as "native English speaker". No one has to share info about his/her origin, of course, but what that user is doing is misleading other editors and this constitutes acting.

I have little reason to doubt anything she said about herself (you can go through her talk page comments and previous versions of her user page if you really are into it). She certainly contributes on a level of a native English speaker (or close) - she's a good copy editor, and she's much less sloppy than some other editors (myself included - I'm really sloppy in all the languages I write). She did come back from a brief retirement by nomming Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan (2nd nomination) today, so... In any event, I intend to keep my distance - I did not "enjoy" protracted discussions with her. Note that editing with an agenda is not a COI - unless you are employed by a gvmt or an advocacy group perhaps (which I have no reason to believe in this case). Many Wikipedia editors have opinions. Even strong ones. That's not COI.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems you did not get what I mean. I did not say that he or she is not fluent or sloppy in English. The issue here is not about the editor's en-level. Anyway, i just wanted to express my concerns regarding him/her and i stand behind what i said. Cheers.

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For a really, really well-written article on the Wrangell Bombardment, a key, but forgotten, piece of Alaska Native & American history. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN

	Hello Icewhiz: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 09:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist - might give it a stab.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits on CAIR

I may as well say this-I am not a Muslim, I am an American non-Muslim. I have no axe to grind regarding CAIR, which may well take absurd positions which I would disagree with in the name of "civil rights".

This is why I want it to be edited the way I do:

ALL critics of CAIR do not accuse it of being pro-"terrorist". Michael Scheuer, for instance, has criticized it merely for refusing to concede the links between Islam and America's enemies, as I have noted.

At the same time, not everyone who dismisses these criticisms would call them Islamophobic. Can Wikipedia offer an exhaustive list in this regard, of all humanity? I would dismiss the criticisms made in the links (CAIR has in fact CONDEMNED both Hamas and Hezbollah, and even called Hassan Nasrallah satanic for his actions in Syria) but I would not confuse even the most McCarthyist libels in this regard with prejudice and bigotry against Muslims as a whole.

Moreover, the links themselves give examples of law enforcement people speaking of no "cold, hard facts" linking CAIR to criminal activity.

I might here propose additional edits I did not make.

Why not replace "Islamist" with a more general term "extremist" in the opening? Support for Hamas and Hezbollah in fighting Israel does not equal Islamism; plenty of Arab Christians do the same (rightly or wrongly).

And there is no PROOF that alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood led to the UAE designation; it is speculation. Why not just describe its designation?

And why not replace "terrorism" with "extremism" throughout the article? Critics of CAIR do not really believe that support for groups such as Hamas is criminal because these groups target civilians for death. If they did, they would similarly regard Americans who approve of the nuking of Japan in World War II as "terrorists". They would regard the many pro-Israel American Jews who acknowledge and approve of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 (including the Lydda Death March) as terrorists and would call for them to be treated as a security risk as well.

Please let me know what you think of these proposed edits, including the ones I actually made and were reverted.

-70.190.102.49 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We typically rely on WP:RS. Regarding UAE's designation, senior officials there stated it was due to MB links. That about as clear as you can get.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Please undo your unjustified deletion of content from List of pioneers in computer science, and instead let us resolve matters at the talk page. You are close to breaching WP:3RR. Zazpot (talk)

@Zazpot: You are editing against consensus of several editors on the talk page and inserting highly questionable material into the list. I did not break 3RR. The WP:ONUS for inclusion is on you - and in this case you are a single editor WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page against several others. I suggest you try to achieve consensus for inclusion on the talk page prior to re-inserting questionable content.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, the only material I have added to the lists was WP:VERIFIABLE information that was absolutely on-topic. Accordingly, I have met WP:ONUS. There is no consensus for removing Elizabeth Boyd Granville from the list, yet you have done so repeatedly. Please withdraw your false assertions, and please stop making unjustified deletions. Zazpot (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Not a single editor on the talk page agrees about Granville. It is verifiable she was an African-American woman with a Mathematics PhD who is recognized for doing programming work for NASA. Her awards are limited to recognition of African Americans in X, the Wilbur Cross Medal, and a couple of honorary doctorates.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, re:

• verifiability. The page in question is called "List of pioneers in computer science". It states, "This article presents a list of individuals who helped in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do." The citations for Granville's entry verify that she was a computing pioneer who very much helped in this regard. Her inclusion in the list is therefore entirely appropriate.
• consensus. Andy Dingley clearly disagreed with the suggestion that several entries, including Granville's, should be deleted. David Eppstein expressed serious concern about your deletions (which include Granville). And MrFlowerpot said that Granville should be kept "by all means". Zazpot (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I ask again: please undo your deletions, which are not supported by consensus, and withdraw your false assertions. Zazpot (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@MrFlowerpot: was being sarcastic. I don't see Andy Dingley agreeing with you regarding Granville. And I'd actually love to see David Eppstein's opinion here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. I urge you to keep Granville because there is no evidence that she has contributed anything to computer science and the references represent her as either a NASA employee involved in pioneering space efforts and/or as someone who paved the way for American people of African descent in the sciences. As I said, misinformation on Wikipedia appreciates my collection of print books and my degree, and misrepresentation of women's contribution increases my Y chromosome's worth. I appreciate your cooperation in maximizing my utility. MrFlowerpot (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Careful, the wikilawyers might say such motivation is COI - and I am being sarcastic.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello.

I have created a personal user page with a long line of important references regarding Islamism, mass-immigration, and the occasional other topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links

However, I am kept extremely busy managing one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis, so I have very limited free time.

Given your apparently rational fact-oriented mindset, I wonder if you would be interested in browsing through them, and inserting the more relevant ones as references in related Wikipedia pages.

Help would be extremely appreciated. David A (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR

I don't know how long you have been editing but can you explain to me your understanding of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because this has been a repeat problem across multiple articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss specific articles in the article page, please.Icewhiz (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's posted to the OR/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That was the BLP's own stage name you decided was defamatory - this was the name he used as a hip hop artist and under which he released two albums.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wrangell Bombardment

Hello! Your submission of Wrangell Bombardment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Wrangell Bombardment

On 16 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wrangell Bombardment, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the U.S. Army bombarded the village of Wrangell, Alaska, in 1869 to force the handover of the first man to be given the death penalty under U.S. rule? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wrangell Bombardment. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wrangell Bombardment), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Almarin

The statement is not WP:SYNTH, it is in the source as I stated it in the article. I did not have to synthesize any sources - it is only sourced to one source, and it is clearly stated in that source. I think you are arguing that it is UNDUE. I was careful when writing the article to not include too much background information and to keep the article balanced, but I don't think a short paragraph on the "statute" or regulation at issue in the case is UNDUE, especially when so much has been published about the regulations, and it is definitely an issue that anyone reading the article should be aware of. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your RfC on Islamic terrorism

I took the liberty of adding a 'section heading' question to your RfC. I think what we label this text is as important as whether to include, hope you don't mind, no one had commented at the time of my addition. Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: replied there - but I propose we leave this out. I am not insisting on any particular heading (though I think a cause / motivation is in line) - I added a heading because it didn't really fit into background or overview.Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've struck-through our brief discussion on the RfC as to where/whether to put my supplementary Q., since I thought it might be confusing to others, hope you don't mind. Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)