User talk:Tom soldier

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Tom soldier, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! 43?9enter (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Borodino

Nice addition, however, have you a citation for it?Tirronan (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can look it up, but I didn't believe it necessary, as I only chnaged the link from Russian Guard Jägers to the Egersky Guards Regiment - at the time only single regiment of Russian Guard Jägers existed. (In Russian Egersky literally means of jägers, phonetically transliterated).-Tom soldier (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Comments

Please take care when calling out others editors for "vandalism". My edit to the Battle of Königgrätz was correct and explained in the edit summary. Falsely accusing others of vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPA guideline. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I'd missed the point, but as you hadn't given a valid explanation for your content removal, I supposed you were engaged in some quite strange sort of joking. Thank you-.Tom soldier (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: If I'm still missing the point and/or you believe that not being C-i-C is a valid rationale for removal from the infobox, please explain your reasons on the talk page. Your position does not seem to be supported by the template documentation. Thank you.Tom soldier (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Moltke was not C-i-C either, he was (formally) only the chief of staff to the C-i-C, His Majesty the King of Prussia (who was present at the Sadowa battlefield). Are you going to remove him too? Tom soldier (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for removing the information was clear from the edit summary. You still haven't apologised for calling it vandalism. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't - simply stating that Prince Albert of Saxony was commander of the corps simply could not and does not justify his removal from infobox, without giving any rationale that such command should not qualify for the including in the infobox (not to mention to give a rationale why such commander should not be included in the infobox). And yes - I've already did apologise: "I'm sorry if I'd missed the point" - how you'd called this?-Tom soldier (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it passive-aggressive, not an apology. You called my edit vandalism and it wasn't. That is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it was vandalism, it doesn't meet the strict definitions set out by this site. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to realise it wasn't. Perhaps it was perfectly clear to you, but I was not able to find out what your point was, from your edit summary. Foe me, it was an obvious case of hidden vandalism, removing content coupled with a non-explanation. I'm not going to apologise twice for the same thing. -Tom soldier (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem then. Do not use terms such as "vandalism" unless they clearly fall under this site's definition of them. Calling people vandals when they are not is violating the Assume Good Faith principle, and you will be warned if you do it again. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn!'t known it wasn't. I was in perfectly good faith that you're removing Albert under some strange phrasing in the edit summary, only intended to look as if it were a valid, reasonable explanation, at he first sight.Tom soldier (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you read the relevant policies. It doesn't matter what you think. Vandalism has a strict definition, and it was abundantly clear that my edit didn't meet it. Therefore what you did was contrary to AGF, whether you like it or not. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:AGF. Thank you.12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't violated faith at any point: you did. Quoting a policy at me is therefore pointless. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not - I saw removal of content explained by the phrase "Corps commander, not a commander in chief" (or like). To that I reacted exactly as if someone removed Mercury (planet) from the Solar system article with "Not the Jupiter" explanation. I could not had known your personal dislike of commanders other than C-i-C in infoboxes, neither your personal belief regarding the template documentation. And I did apologise for that.Tom soldier (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you did not understand the edit summary does NOT automatically make it vandalism. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS YET???????? Go and read WP:VAND. Let me quote you the very first sentence: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (my bolding). Your persistent inability to understand basic WP policies requires me to remind you that Competence is Required. If you still cannot understand the policy, please stop editing until you do. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well - a removal of content under a jocular non-explanation in the edit summary looks very like a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.Tom soldier (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're still accusing me of vandalism? Your continued decision to ignore WP policy is disturbing. Perhaps I should start an abuse case for you, since you're evidently not listening to me. Unless I see some sign that you are prepared to read the policies and follow them, that's what I'll be doing. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no - I did apologise for it, already. I'm only trying to explain you what your edit summary looked like, and that I was genuinely believing your edit being a non-legit one at the time.Tom soldier (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmann's wolfpack

Hello
You just edited the Hartmann’s wolfpack page, two minutes after I put a new page tag on it, to let everybody know I was still writing the thing.
Could you not do that, please. It set up an edit conflict, so I lost the section I was writing, and had to do it again.
I know articles need categories; if you care to come back in an hour, when the page is further on, you’ll find I will have added them.
Thank you. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, I haven't realised that the template also includes pages still being created - I assumed that the In creation template is used in such situation, and template "New page" means the article has just been created. Thank you for your notification.-Tom soldier (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Fair enough! Actually, the In creation template is a new one on me; I've been following the advice at NPP on templates, but the new one is clearer. No worries, this isn’t brain surgery! Xyl 54 (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Warnings

Don't give out warnings when you don't know what you're doing.

I didn't revert anything with my latest edit: I inserted new, cited content. Your continued ignorance of Wikipedia policy is becoming a serious problem, and I will not hesitate to instigate an investigation of your behaviour should you continue. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:3RR. And please do not use my talk page for your irrelevant rantings again.Tom soldier (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Tom soldier,

This is just a notification to request that you carefully format reports on the WP:AN/EW for automated processing reasons. You received this notification because of a malformed report causing a technical glitch with a warning posted at User talk:Rpeh, but has since been rectified.

Please do be careful when submitting reports! -=- Adam Walker -=- 10:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'll be more careful. Thank you for notification.Tom soldier (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A whack with a larger trout

Tom, your argument with rpeh is becoming tiresome and disruptive. I would warn you as I did rpeh, save that you have not (not quite...) descended into incivility. rpeh was rude to you because you are in fact being disruptive here when you need to be more collaborative. I'm not saying rpeh was right to be incivil, just that you need to know your tactics are trying people's patience and not getting you anywhere. Try discussing this at the template talk page I linked on miltary infoboxes, keep off rpeh's talk page and do your best to work collaboratively, please! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I does not feel being diruptive, I'm trying to convince rpeh react to my question and discuss the issue, but his unresponsivness makes the things very difficult. I just feel rpeh is not being very collaborative. I made mistake, calling his first edit vandalism (for which I did apologise him aready), but I was really unaware what he had meant with his edit summary, as he did not express his belief that subordinate commanders are not eligible in it.

I'm trying hard to stick with the civility, but it's so difficult in circumstantions given. Where can I find any help? I asked rpeh many times why he believes in his "Commander-in-Chiefs only" dogma - he either gave me false quotation of the Template:Infobox military conflict policy (which he made up from a guideline proposal) or just kept repeating his Commanders-in-Chief-only chant. If there's any way someone could help rpeh to react to my questions I'd be very glad. What could I do?

Thank you for your advice on template talk page, that was something that did not come on my mind.Tom soldier (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - can I suggest you go here and have the discussion which will hopefully include a range of other editors as well as you two? I'm sure you can both arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion for the benefit of WP. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again - I've been actually editing the page already. Your suggestion is the best advice I'd been given during the whole course of the dispute. Thanks.Tom soldier (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]