User talk:PRRfan

Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello PRRfan!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, PRRfan. Thank you for your work on Minton Cronkhite. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you should

you should read the mos:jargon #### face and it said Do not change to "allision," see MOS:JARGON_ SO NEXT TIME LISTEN!2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My dear anonymous editor, kindly take your concerns to the article's Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE AND NO ONE CARES AND ARE YOU NOT LOOKING OR WHAT? JEAUS CHRIST 2604:3D09:A984:F000:5806:B586:1ABC:3DE8 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or at least we should ad a too technical box 2604:3D09:A984:F000:5806:B586:1ABC:3DE8 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]