User talk:Sus scrofa

Archives

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in August 1944 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in September 1942 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in March 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Ali

On a second review it seems the desribing him as British-Pakistani can be reasonably argued, so you have no more objections from me. Tariq appears on the British-Pakistani page in the photo montage which is a good indication of things! KingHiggins (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great name

Great name and an amusing surprise clicking through to your user page Testem (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Sus scrofa (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verification needed that Greece planned not to oppose the German advance

What sort of verification do you need? I quoted Sadkovich. Isn't that enough?

AnnalesSchool (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As me and another editor found it implausible that Greece planned hand over their country to the Germans, I believe it is proper to add a "verification needed" tag to the disputed sentence. If the information is confirmed by other editors the tag can be removed. AFAIK, the Greeks merely planned poorly and committed to much of their army to pursuing the Italians into Albania when they should have held back units for defense. In the event, they could only offer little resistance against the Germans, but that was not intentional.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

In Vietnam war you said leaving all contested territory in the hands of the enemy is not a victory, but then you removed the ((fact)) tag. I don't understand?😊OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a victory for America, is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guy I've been chatting with here on WP claims the US had a tactical victory. He seems very knowledgeable about the Vietnam war. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of his comments to me on the USA talk page:

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam with their VietCong insurgency (defeated in the field) did not defeat the United States tactically on the ground. Both parties agreed to a peace in Paris, which lead to the U.S. and SEATO force withdrawal leaving only the Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It was only after two years afterwards when the SRV broke the Peace Accords and invaded RoV, and the U.S. stood idle.

RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panther tank

Good work! However I do prefer Brew up :) Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Change it back if you want, I just figured that "catastrophic ammunition explosion" is easier to understand for the non-initiated.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah mate, we will stick with what we've got. It is clearer. Only us old tank freaks know of such things, and the mention is in your link. Again, thanks. Irondome (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scalhotrod

User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view (see StG 44 & Assault rifle pages). He claims that it is not a reliable source. No matter that a simple Google search reveals that it is widely use on Wiki and various books and other publications. How should we proceed? Should we take this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and let the Wiki community rule?--RAF910 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing it first on the talk page of assault rifle? The source is not the Lone Sentry website, it's the original publication. I tried finding a copy (since it's in public domain), but annoyingly the Internet Archive didn't have number 57.--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--RAF910 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:StG 44 page User:Scalhotrod is clearly an unreasonable POV pusher and this will likely be taken to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--RAF910 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just filed the ANI as I believe that User:Scalhotrod is toying with me and no evidence will satisfy him.--RAF910 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scalhotrod has filed a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LoneSentry.com Clearly, he wants to discredit the lonesentry info so that he can completely rewrite the Stg 44 and possibly other pages. Please add your input there. Thank you--RAF910 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An olive branch

Hi Sus scrofa and RAF910, by my estimate you are both active Editors and enthusiastic contributors to the subjects covered by the Firearm Project. I am a member as well and all too familiar with the amount of crap and vandalism that many of the firearm and related articles receive. I've also done my fair share of editing on Project articles of all types. Furthermore, I did not come to the StG 44 article with the intention of picking a fight with anyone over anything, but in the process I found what appeared to be some weaknesses in the content and sourcing.

That said, I have admitted and apologized for the confusion caused by MY misinterpretation of the use of the word "Sturm". For the record, I am not on a "crusade" or "mission" to discredit the Lone Sentry website (or portions of it) unless it turns out that it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, hence the request I made at WP:RSN. I think without too much effort you'll find that I am a reasonable Editor and someone that strives for the improvement of articles. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I admit I'm sometimes to quick on the old revert trigger finger.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]