User talk:PRRfan

Foster Home/Sylvan Plantation edit

Hi, I have a question on edit you made to the above article [1]. Is there a specific reason you referred to it as a forced labour farm rather than a slave plantation? The underlying link to Plantation complexes in the Southern United States is obviously the ideal one, but I am curious as to whether there is some nuance in the current debate in US that I am unaware of that might of guided your choice of words. Skullcinema (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good question. For decades, mainstream American culture propagated the myth that enslaved African Americans benefited from or even enjoyed their situation.[2] [3] Accounts by and about tour guides and docents at plantation museums show that they still get questions like "But the slaves were happy, weren't they?"[4] So "slave plantation", while hardly a euphemism, nevertheless fails at some level to convey what was happening on these farms. Use of the term "forced-labor"—generally along with "slave plantation", not instead of it—is meant to help Wikipedia articles be more explicit about their subject and thereby to more properly inform the reader. PRRfan (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, as stated I did wonder whether this was a US-specific form of words. I will note that from outside the US, unfortunately, a euphemism is pretty much what it looks like. The fact that the building was the centre of a large slave cotton farm is otherwise absent from the text and the term forced-labour often has much more benign connotations elsewhere. But as I guess most of the page's readers are likely to be from inside the US it may be more appropriate (but perhaps less accurate) to leave it as is. Skullcinema (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I think you're right: "slave plantation" should be added. The point is not to avoid that description but to underline it. PRRfan (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, have sorted it. Skullcinema (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Skidmore

For the record, the source I provided does mention the firm, under their common initialism SOM. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that later, after I'd ginned up a source that spelled it out. PRRfan (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't undo edits solely based on edit summaries. ɱ (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's good policy; I'll try not to do so in the future. And thank you (and me) for doing the work requested by the cn tags, which have led to solid improvements to the article. PRRfan (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Rudolph Hall

Thanks and commendations for your work on improving this article, which had been bugging me for a little while. I'm glad someone with more time, more knowledge, more skill, or a combination of those was able to do the work. Onward! Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just more time, I think. Thanks! PRRfan (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request for Dahua Technology

Hi PRRfan, I am working on improving the Dahua Technology article. As you are an experienced editor and have previously worked on the China Investment Corporation page (whose subsidiary, Central Huijin Investment, partially owns Dahua), I thought you may be interested in reviewing my edit request on the Dahua Technology talk page. I'd appreciate if you would implement the two remaining points which have not yet been addressed. Of course, I am happy to discuss and hear your thoughts. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Civil War Centennial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War reenactment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

P&W

I had to revert one of your edits because it created an unsourced paragraph, which we obviously can't have in a FA, especially one actively on the main page. You can do your changes again, as long as we don't lose any citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And nice work on the FA! PRRfan (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevy Chase Lake & Kensington Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock Creek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Norfolk and Western 611

I've added a lot of new information for the N&W 611 page, using my copy of the Norfolk and Western Class J: The Finest Steam Passenger Locomotive book. I was wondering if you can copy-edit it for me. 611fan2001 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I recently wrote a page about the locomotive's wreck in 1956. 611fan2001 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're on fire! PRRfan (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 😁 611fan2001 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I even reworked the Powhatan Arrow page! 611fan2001 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garden Club of America Entrance Markers in Washington, D.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Earnest Will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSIS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Union Bank of Delaware

Hello PRRfan since you created this article: coming across this image, I was wondering if that is the building. If positive, it could be added to the article and ond Wikidata. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do note that a substantial portion of the edit was quoted material, which is permitted under copyright policy if not too long, but it was my assessment that the edit included too much material other than simply the quote. Happy to discuss.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The reversion of several edits reversed a lot of work, much of which, presumably, was not connected to the copyvio. Better would have been to have explicitly identified the text of concern. In any case, I have restored the edits in multiple chunks to allow more selective reversion, but have also made changes to fix what seemed to be the problem. PRRfan (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)