Ecrm87

List of active Ukrainian military aircraft

Please don’t add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you have done on the List of active Ukrainian military aircraft article. The source you provided was a dead link. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources –Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Those edits are all cited and none of the links are dead, which I note is not the case with your edit. Please read the edit carefully before making unsourced reverts.

Unfortunately your source has not been updated since 19 вересня 2013 (September 19, 2013) - current sourcing supersedes outdate content. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but my source is cited in relation to the origin of the planes, something that is entirely unsourced in your edit. That sourcing therefore remains relevant until you can provide alternative proof.

Don't Revert All

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on List of active Ukrainian military aircraft article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users'. If they're certain changes you want to make, then do them individually, as opposed to reverting the entire article. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FOX 52 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed this with you in the past (See Talk:List_of_active_Ukrainian_military_aircraft and the section Edits by Fox 52) and after well over a decade of Anonymous editing have created this account for the purpose of logging the dispute in full. I have noticed you repeatedly undoing fully sourced Users edits on other pages for no reason other than to apparently revert to your own version. You hardly ever engage when criticism is levelled at your edits and seem to cite Wikipedia policy with extraordinary selectiveness. An example is right above, you say: 'You are expected to avoid editing disruptively and to try to reach consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users'. This is exactly the behaviour you engage in, making it virtually impossible for anyone to make even a sourced edit on a page edited by you. As you've repeatedly ignored my points on the Article Talk page, this page and your own Talk page, I'm notifying you here that I have requested a Third Opinion on this dispute at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active Disagreements. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That might be best - FOX 52 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

The pertinent passage in the MoS is under "Biography".

Positions, offices, and occupational titles

Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis). ...

Unmodified, denoting a title	Modified or reworded, denoting a description
Richard Nixon was President of the United States.	Richard Nixon was the president of the United States. Richard Nixon was a president of the United States. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972. A controversial American president, Richard Nixon, resigned. Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States.

More similar examples follow (e.g. with "king"), all of which I followed throughout my translation of the article from the German. Given this, could you please go back now and undo your capitalizations? Thanks GHStPaulMN (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've lower cased king in "Frederick VI was king of Denmark". Also, please note per MOS:DECADE that decades to not use an apostrophe. DrKay (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

My mistake with the apostrophe, spell checker was telling me it was wrong. As for 'king of Denmark' see the text directly above which is copied from MOS. When used in that fashion it is a noun and should not be capitalised as per the policy. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between 'Richard Nixon was President of the United States' and 'Frederick VI was king of Denmark'. I don't understand the reasoning for why one is lower case and the other capitalized. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that the Unmodified statement meant it was incorrect. The previous paragraph says it should only be capitalised in two instances, and it doesn't fit the bill for either of those. Ecrm87 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

President of the United States article and MOS:JOBTITLES

As pointed above, "president" in the President of the United States article was placed in lowercase as per MOS:JOBTITLES. Specifically, it is uncapitalized because it is preceded by the modifier "the" (bullet 3 and table column 2 example 1).

I have accordingly reverted your edit capitalizing the term.

Regards, WikiEditor50 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In the United States Constitution, 'President of the United States', 'the President of the United States' are capitalised. This is also the case with all official government communications. Therefore to put president into lower case in its job title is to be legally incorrect. Ecrm87 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you go through the talk page of the article. This has been discussed already. See Talk:President of the United States/Archive 10 for example. What the government does is inconsequential; they tend to capitalize many things to give importance, which is not followed on Wikipedia. WikiEditor50 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies really are dumb. Two hundred years of historical usage and along come a group of people who decide they know better. No wonder academics look down on this place. Ecrm87 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

A case of bad temper at crossing accepted historical uses, not archived so as to own the mistake. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

the king

Thyanks for most of your "corrections", but we don't in fact capitalize "the king" etc in running prose, only with the name. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually yes we do. See this from MOS:JOBTITLE:

• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).

Ecrm87 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Paramandyr (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mary I of England, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Explanatory footnotes are not excused from Wikipedia:Verifiability. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I know the rules. Citation was not required in that note, and you have a history of deleting sources you disagree with. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You do not know the rules. Citations are required for all article content, especially any contested content. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In which case why have you not cited the content that's there now? By the same logic it should be cited. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is cited. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No it is not. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify that further, the point in question is not sourced. The overall assertion, yes. But the change you're making by removing the note that Spanish commercial policies were not uniform? Definitely not sourced. Ecrm87 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it is the editor adding material that must cite sources, not the editor removing it. The footnote is still an irrelevant tangent anyway, even if it were sourced. DrKay (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing is available for the assertion as you well know, you've deleted it before. I fully concede that the information has no place in the main body of text, but I do not agree that it is an irrelevant tangent when in the form of a footnote. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Buckhurst.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)