User talk:Shimbo

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shimbo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shimbo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clan Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Bernard Montgomery

Hi - WP:BAREURLS has a heading explaining "What is wrong with bare URLs?". I have invested quite a bit of time getting the article getting the article to B Class some years ago. And that includes properly formatting the urls. Reverting my efforts is really not constructive. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for improving it. Dormskirk (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inspirational fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Where is the consensus you mentioned? All i saw was a unfinished discussion, with people disagreeing. Then, without citing any sources, an IP on its own, added the information. Per WP:UNSOURCED, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Coltsfan (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look in the archive you'll find whether Market Garden was a defeat a victory or something in-between has been discussed incessantly. The fact that there's no consensus is why you shouldn't be changing it. I'm not going to revert you again because I'm not getting into a revert war, and I have no particular interest in what it says, but you are not editing in accord with Wikipedia policies. I'm sure you already know that you should be trying to build a consensus, not just reverting good faith edits. The way forward is probably an RfC. --Shimbo (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to that discussion where this consensus was reached? Cuz in the first archived discussion, there was a lengthy discussion indeed, but no consensus. In the second archived discussion, again, discussed at length, but no consensus. Now, in the current discussion page, the users still don't seem to find a consensus either.

In short: first, there was never a consensus on the matter. Second, WP:V says any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, and third, you have the WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX to contend with: "The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions..

Again, if you show me the link where there was a debate and a full-blown consensus was reached, i'd love to see it. Coltsfan (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mate, you seem to be missing the point. I said there ISN"T a consensus. That's why we need an RfC to build one instead of the result flopping around like it's done for years. What it doesn't need is yet another person editing it to what they think is 'right'. If we follow the correct process then maybe we can sort this out once and for all. --Shimbo (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir, you are the one who is missing the point. An IP added the information a few weeks ago. One, you can say i'm keeping the stable version (the one that withstood the longest without changes); two, like i said, WP:V says i can remove any information that has no source to back it up, at any time, regardless of how long the information is there or to what end. So, you have a piece of contentious info that was added without sources, without prior consensus and that violated the page's WP:STATUSQUO. How am i in the wrong here? Sorry, but i fail see it. If anyone wants to begin a discussion, fine, but as far as i'm aware, as far as the rules go, the stable version is to be maintained until a consensus is reached. And if the IP wants to add information that has no sources to back it up, per rules, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Simple as that. Coltsfan (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

QAnon and the 1871 act

Did either of my sources confirm the act that you linked to was the right one?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, If you look at the article District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 you can see its role in the QAnon claim that the USA is a corporation explained with sources there. I don't think you need to add those sources to the QAnon article (I think the Rolling Stone article is enough) but if you want to add more then go ahead. --Shimbo (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)