User talk:Solicitr

Oldest synagogues in the United States

Thank you for adding Richmond. I am starting an article on the congregation under its present name Beth Ahabah. I hope you will check it for accuracy or add to it.Historicist (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Thanks...

...for your edits to Alaska-class cruiser! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

German Military History

Ranks and Insignia of the German Army in World War II

General

Beginning in 1900 Prussian generals had worn ornate collar patches embroidered in a style called alt-Larisch, which had first been worn in the 18th century by the 26th (Älterer von Larisch) Infantry Regiment. These devices, sometimes called Arabesken (arabesques), were embroidered in gold bullion or bright golden synthetic Celleon on Hochrot (scarlet) backing. The Reichsheer and the Wehrmacht continued the tradition.

Field Marshal

Field Marshals wore the same Arabesken as generals until April 1941, when they were authorized a longer variant with three rather than two iterations of the repeating pattern, for a total of six "prongs."

General officers of the various staff corps (medical, veterinary etc.) wore the same insignia until 1944, when they were ordered to exchange their red Kragenpatten for alt-Larisch tabs backed in their service's respective Waffenfarbe.

Nice job on the new article. I do think it needs a References section. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it needs a lot of stuff. Like text, for instance. It's very much a work in progress.Solicitr (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW- have a look at this "new English" article: Concentration Camps Inspectorate. Kierzek (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Note-some of the "columns" noting the collar patches need to be tweaked as they are overlapping the word paragraphs. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother now, eh? Just joking. So how did you get this gig? Kierzek (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't ask for it, it just happened. It's possible that you get it after X number of edits; I really don't know. Solicitr (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would vouch for you. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien family

Hello, I thought you'd be interested in learning that the Royd Baker vs. Christopher Carrie issue is now being continued on the article by User:Christopher Carrie, deleting this and that "bogus" source. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can you get involved in this. Carrie is going completely overboard this time. 88.110.207.247 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

---

This discussion has moved to the [1]BLP Noticeboard isfutile:P (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shroud

Hi, I added 2 fact flags to your additions to Shroud. Please add references to keep them there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--John (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please do not attack other editors by simply wiping out their views on discussion pages. You are engaging in POV censorship and you know it; one cannot "assume good faith" when there is no conceivable coloratuion of good faith involved Solicitr (talk)

Discussion pages are to be used only for discussing possible improvements to the articles. If you diverge into general discussion, the post may be removed. If you attack other editors, you may be blocked. --John (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. "You have been warned," couched in the tones of the hall monitor. The threatening of the Wikilawyer, confident that his command of the Rules allows him to silence debate. --Solicitr (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across that way. We don't really have rules so much as norms; but if you do stuff that holds back the development of the project you will definitely face sanctions. We are not primarily here to have "debate" (though there are plenty of forums out there where you can do this), but to write an encyclopedia. Surely this isn't news to you? --John (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pages are for discussing the article. If an article contravenes (at least in an editor's subjective opinions) the norms, in this case NPOV, then it ought to be discussed; and you don't facilitate that by simply shutting off the microphone. Talk pages are there for that purpose, being vastly superior to edit wars. Yes, we are trying to make an encyclopedia- which means that it should be long on facts and short on opinion; and the facts presented shouldn't be so imbalanced as to amount to op/ed. --Solicitr (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now we're talking. Certainly talk page discussion is better than edit-warring, I agree with you there. If you read the talk archives at that page though, you'll see just how thoroughly this has been discussed in the past. While it's true that consensus can change, if it happens on this topic it is going to be from new political and/or legal developments, and not from one editor's opinions. I suggest you go back to the archives, read them thoroughly and reevaluate whether you have anything to add to the topic. It is precisely because this has been such a fraught topic in the past that I am taking such a line on the matter. I hope you understand and I thank you for your understanding. --John (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please remember to focus your talkpage contributions on the topic of concrete improvements to the associated article, especially when discussing contentious topics. Further edits along these lines should be avoided. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, please keep in mind that article talkpages are for use by all editors. If you need to address a comment to a particular user, please use their user talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply at Waterboarding and associated articles

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. On some of Wikipedia's most contentious articles, the standards of behaviour are a little less lax than they might be elsewhere. Please be aware that if you continue in the vein of the preceding section, you may be blocked under the provisions of that case. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)