Hello Troy von Tempest. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Alice In Paperland".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alice In Paperland}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TheMesquito^buzz 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximilian Wengler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it's advisable to keep Nazi Party as the main link, since that's the name of the Wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told that the common name Nazi Party is to be used and you keep changing the name to NSDAP; even after I cited WP:BRD [1]. You need to take it to the talk page and are going past the three revert rule. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. stop the slow edit war and going against known consensus as to Common Name in English used for Nazi Party as stated above and below in posts herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -O.R.^Comms 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Troy von Tempest. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas SBD Dauntless, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer (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) 09:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing English-language titles to German-language titles in Nazi-related articles. Our jobs in writing an encyclopedia is to convey information, and writing in a way that few readers are going to understand is not doing that. Please use English-language WP:COMMONNAME titles from now on. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with my contributions to the Hermann Göring entry. I spent a lot of time adding content only to see it continually deleted by one individual. Why is that? I added an entire section on his early life dealing with his drug addiction in Sweden, using a legitimate 2015 source, which the person who is deleting my contributions has added as additional reading. He has also allowed the use of this author's 2006 book as a reference, but apparently all the information I added using his 2015 book is not good enough, as the additional content was not allowed because I was only using one source. There was nothing before this, so why is the additional content now deemed unallowable because of the 2015 reference book? I also added content to the awards and decorations section which has been deleted. There is no English Wiki entry for some of his awards, but there is in the German Wiki. I added certain things with (de) after the link in red, so people would know they can search for it on other parts of Wikipedia. Surely it's better to offer other Wiki entries, even if it's not in English, than to have no entry at all? Is it against the rules to offer interested readers to other language options in Wiki? Or do I have to translate the German one then make an English entry before it's permissible? Why is there no means for discussing wholesale deletion before it is done?

Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how content disputes are settled. Please go to the article's talk page, at Talk:Hermann Göring and make whatever arguments you wish to make there. The dispute will be settled by a WP:CONSENSUS of editors discussing the issue at the page. 04:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to this article, please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

In this case, being a newer aource is no guarantee of greater accuracy. The source you replaced is widely considered to be a highly reliable one, while the source you replaced it with has no such reputation. Please do not restore the material until you have more than one source to support the information, or until you have a consensus of editors on the article's talk page who wupport your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with my edit on Emil Maurice. I added content and it was deleted with a dismissive backhander that I didn't need to include the whole kitchen sink? If someone is prepared to put the work in and add content, who is the arbiter of whether or not it is worthy of being in an encyclopaedia? How does the person who deleted my content know that nobody would be interested in it? Is there some rule about how much information is allowed in an encyclopaedia? Why am I doing something wrong by adding to content? Nobody else has seen fit to do it, why am I finding myself having content deleted because someone thinks it's too much information?

Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, content disputes are settled on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Emil Maurice, where a WP:consensus of editors will determine the outcome. In this instance, two different editors independently determined that parts of the information you added were unnecessary or inappropriate for the article. Clearly you disagree, but the place to discuss the disagreement is on the article talk page. This is a basic tenet of editing Wikipedia, which I am surprised you aren't aware of after seven years of editing as User:Von tempest and User:Troy von Tempest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I have a warning over uploaded images, with no permission added. One was of a Junkers Ju 87 which is a postcard that I own. A period postcard that has no photographers name on it. Since the postcard is now over 75 years old, how would I go about getting the photographers permission to post his work please? I have thousands of postcards and the same problem arises with them all. I also have original photographs, bought from various sources that don't have any details with them. How do I use these or aren't I allowed to? I'm uncertain of the process. I also uploaded a common image of U-16 that I found on another Wiki page, in fact their are four different Wiki pages using this image. I'm uncertain as to why they are allowed to stay up but when I used the image I've been advised I could be banned? Need help regarding posting of wartime images. Does the same thing apply to WWI images that are now over 100 years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to sign your comments. Simply add 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) to the end of the comment and the system will add a name, time & date stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply regarding postcards, what about the U-16 image that is on four other Wiki pages? Will they be deleted and the posters of those images also be issued a warning? If I found the image on Wikipedia, is that not enough permission? Sorry, I don't know how to reply to my original question so I added this new one Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a tendency to label changes in content as "typo" in your edit summaries. Please don't do this. A typo -- short for "typographical error" -- is something like "teh" for "the", "acccuracy" for "accuracy", or "filed"for "field", i.e. a simple slip of the fingers on a keyboard or typing error. Changing "Field marshal general" to "Field marshal" is not fixing a typo, it is changing content. Please be more precise in your edit summaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are Bundesarchiv images all over Wikipedia. Does that mean I can use those in my edits as well? Or has every image been posted in Wiki due to the editor having permission from the Bundesarchiv to use them? If editors haven't had permission to use Bundesarchiv images, why are they still all over the place please? I still haven't been told why the image of U-16 was not allowed to be used by myself, but is on four or five other Wikipedia pages. I'm not understanding why I can't use it but others can. Is there a process here I'm missing or doesn't anyone worry about the other pages that use it?Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do editors have to tell you not to add trivial awards to articles about Nazis, as you just did -- again -- on Ernst Rohm? Are you daring someone to take this to the noticeboards? Don;t do that, it's something you will not win. Just stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which trivial awards have I added now? I've asked before when I'm allowed to add a link to an existing wiki article and did not get a clear answer. I don't even know which trivial awards you're talking about now? I asked before could someone give me a list of all the trivial awards so I won't incur your wrath. I'm not a mind reader, I don't know what you or another editor consider trivial. Another editor told me that the ones that were deleted from the Hermann Göring page weren't trivial, so what do I do? I did not add any to the Ernst Röhm page that were deleted from the Hermann Göring page, so unless I'm given clear and unambiguous instructions as to what awards with a wiki page are allowed to be used and which ones are not allowed to be used, how do I know if I'm adding a trivial award or not? It is grossly unfair for you and another editor to tell me not to add trivial awards when I don't have a list of all the awards that are considered by you as trivial. I'm not trying to "win" anything, and yes, please take this to a higher lever, perhaps someone then will let me know what linked wiki pages I'm permitted to make a reference to and which ones I'm not allowed to make a reference to. Until someone helps me with a list of wiki links that are not allowed to be used, how will I know what is permissible and what is not? I also have not got any reply from you re Manvell and Frankael vs Miller. I asked why a 56 year old book with not.one.single.reference. is gospel, but a 2015 book with 45 references is not allowed to be used as a reference re Hermann Göring, still no answer. I also asked why an image I found on four other wiki pages is taken down when I posted it, I don't know why it's allowed on four other wiki pages but not mine? Again, no answer. I also asked about Bundesarchiv photos, no answer. I'm using my page to seek guidance and all I seem to get are threats about so called trivial awards with no clear guidance as to what constitutes a trivial award. Should I not bother to ask questions here and ask somewhere else? I'm asking politely yet get aggressive and dismissive answers if I'm lucky to get an answer at allTroy von Tempest (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the requirements of editing Wikipedia exactly backwards. I suggest that you review WP:BRD. To summarize what it says, when your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

You made an edit to the article above, which I reverted. A discussion is ongoing on the talk page. While that discussion is happening, you cannot restore your edit to the article, because the article must stay in the state it was in before the dispute began, which means before you made your edit. Each time you restore your material, you are, in fact, edit warring, which is not allowed. It is also not going to be looked on well in the dispute resolution case you filed.

Now, please, wait until a consensus has developed on the talk page, and we will both follow that consensus. So far, there is no consensus, just an ongoing discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the process? How many editors does it take please? To be honest, you commenced all this with your unilateral declaration that a number (of which you refuse to specify) of awards are now "trivial" and that stand-alone articles are now not to be linked (according to you). I have repeatedly asked you for a list so I do not incur your wrath, have my added content deleted and have an aggressive warning issued by you, yet you steadfastly refuse to provide a list of newly classified "trivial" awards. I wonder why that is? At any rate I've asked that in the dispute resolution I opened so perhaps I'll get a clear answer from somebody else. If I provide a list of articles which include your newly deemed "trivial" awards, will you also delete them and issue a warning to the editor that added them to the article? If not, why not? I'm happy to do this so I can see if you are going to be equally dismissive of their added content and I would expect to see a warning on their talk pages. I can provide you with at least 20 articles to start with. Do you want them so you can demonstrate you will apply your new standards to everyone, or will you just apply your new standard to me? Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing by: another victim of this user's pathological obsession with edit warring. It's fucking hilarious how an account who has been blocked 11 times for edit warring, and probably countless more times in his sockpuppets, is in here lecturing to people about edit warring.

Ignore him, and put him on ANI again if he continues to harass you. 2601:184:497F:A041:346E:4DEA:DAC2:FCEF (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by ANI? I admit I'm not totally up to speed with all the editing rules and options. Troy von Tempest (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 110.169.134.84. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kryptonics have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. 110.169.134.84 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brunswick Rally Badge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSKK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hulmem. An edit that you recently made to The Time Tunnel seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! hulmem (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy: you have been around long enough to know that you cannot quote "word for word copy and paste" (your words) [2] from a source and then not put it in quotes or if over a certain number of words, not include it "word for word" at all; what you have admitted to here: [3] is a clear WP:COPYVIO violation and must be removed. You cannot closely paraphrase either; change it enough into your own words and cite it. Content has to be written in your own words. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy as @Diannaa: can better inform you.

Also, you seem to be always using only a primary source book for all your additions/citing in German medal and awards articles. The first point it that secondary sources are to be used over primary sources when available. Further, you have stated that you are using the 1943 edition/version of the primary source book, but you keep citing in the reference section to the English translation of the book from 1995. Publisher: Reddick Enterprises; New English Edition edition (December 1, 1995) Language: English, ISBN-10: 0962488348. So which are you using? If it is the 1995 edition you need to change the reference additions where appropriate and give proper attribution. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: My mistake, I didn't know I had to put quotes around it, I'll do so in the future, thanks for telling me. I'll also change the date of the publication as you suggest. I'm a bit confused over this as I have seen many uses as a reference using the 1943 date on wiki and nobody seems to have mentioned that to the various editors who have done that. However I appreciate what you've said and will do so in the future. The article name still needs to be changed as per my message on the talk page. Troy von Tempest (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. If you've been copying and pasting from your sources like you say here, you need to stop doing that, as it's a violation of our copyright policy. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The cutting and pasting in question is from an award criteria document, just as if I was writing an article on a car, for example, I'd refer to the factory specifications that they publish. I was not violating an authors copyright by plagiarism, I'm not taking content from a published story or work of fiction/non-fiction. It was from an official state award criteria regulation. Troy von Tempest (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy, it would still be considered Copyright. In this case, it is really a common description lifted from a copyrighted source. Not information quoted from a technical manual or specific quote of information from a witness to an event from a source; which also would be copyrighted and need attribution. Kierzek (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't copy specifications from a car manual or technical manual either, as such material is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy: Here are two that do need some work, as both the Sudetenland Medal and Hitler Youth Badge need WP:RS citing. Just make sure you write it in your own words; do not copy over "word for word", nor put in quotes. If you work on them, I will review afterwards for copy edit. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I will get to them. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've had two deaths in the family, have been away for a while, would like to do that for you if you can hold off please?

Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Troy von Tempest. 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)[reply]

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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lime Spiders, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troy. Thanks for adding the material to the class page. That article needs a fair bit of work, which I’ve been putting off for some time. But if you’re interested in working on it, I’d be happy to work with you. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BB-PB Sorry for the late reply! Will do soon as well as some other Kriegsmarine related topics. I'll run them past you so you can give them a once over - Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, we all get busy (and it’s not like anything earth-shattering happened to disrupt our lives in the last 2 years, right?) Just let me know where you want to get started and I’d be happy to help. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I'm not sure how to reply to you, is this right? Also, sorry for the other edits, I didn't realise there was another page for the Bismarck. I have loads of books I'd like to further contribute, happy to do so Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine - you can reply here or on my talk page (I like to keep discussions in one place so it's easier to follow). No big deal on the other page. I don't know if you've looked at them, but the Scharnhorst-class battleship, German battleship Scharnhorst, and German battleship Gneisenau need work too, which might interest you. I'd like to eventually get them all to Featured status (like German battleship Bismarck and German battleship Tirpitz are), and would appreciate the help. There's a project at WP:OMT a few other editors and I have been working on for the last decade or so, trying to get all articles on battleships up to at least Good Article status, you may want to join that as well. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Bismarck-class battleship

added links pointing to Seawolf, Z33, Z25, Z30 and Z27

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Beechcraft Model 18. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:DATETIES: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976." (Emphasis mine.) BilCat (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat Hi, could you let me know why the D/M/Y date format was acceptable in the B-29 article please? I see this all the time, just dont understand why you don't either have one date format or why it depends on who wrote the original?

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress?wprov=sfla1

Thanks!

Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. From the same section as above, just after it: "In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage."

Since the B-29 is primarily a military article, it uses DMY. For the Beech 18, the article is primarily about the civilian version, which was developed first, so it uses MDY, even though the military versions are covered there. It's also why Douglas DC-3 uses MDY, but Douglas C-47 Skytrain uses DMY. Hope that helps. BilCat (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat Thanks mate Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat Hi, Doug Weller just had me banned because I apparently directed person abuse at him. Do I have no appeal here? Is Wikipedia a kangaroo court? Why don't I have any means to put my case? seems extremely unfair Troy von Tempest (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/User_talk%3ADoug_Weller#c-Troy_von_Tempest-20220803035600-Date_formats?wprov=sfla1 Troy von Tempest (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's under my name and date format. This all started because I changed some dates from BC to BCE and he reverted them all then started a page having a go at me over it. Firstly I don't understand what is wrong with BCE especially as there are plenty of pages using that format. Secondly I honestly don't see how my reply is in any way a personal attack worthy of instant banning. I used to be an editor on Discogs but gave up after the number of thin skinned editors over there took their "profession" way too seriously. I think Doug Weller would fit right in on Discogs. Do I just give up here like I and many others have over there? Troy von Tempest (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, I'd strongly advise you to avoid such things in the future Doug Weller talk 16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller sorry what did I say that constitutes a personal attack? For that you can just ban me forever? I don't have any say at all? Where's the fairness in that? It wouldn't happen in a court of law, why can it happen on Wikipedia? I have zero option to explain or defend? Troy von Tempest (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "If I change the M/D/Y examples to the correct for non-American subjects to D/M/Y, will you revert my edits as seems to be your want?". That was clearly showing a lack of good faith and not civil. And since my issue was WP:ERA, irrelevant. I did not threaten you with a block or ban. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Then why have I been blocked? Troy von Tempest (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked? You sure? Doug Weller talk 09:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller ok it seems I'm not now. There was a notice on my page that I had been blocked from editing after you replied to me. Troy von Tempest (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see it in the history of this talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Sorry, did I do something wrong? Troy von Tempest (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roxy Music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Porter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Glen Davis, New South Wales

added a link pointing to Ian Barry

The Chain Reaction

added a link pointing to Ian Barry

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Prokhorovka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arado Ar 240, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Henschel Hs 129 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong, again, regarding German aircraft nomenclature. If you are of the opinion that there was a gap between model number and variant, why have you not gone through Wikipedia and edited out every single page for German aircraft which, according to you, incorrectly show no gap between the model number and variant? It can't be okay on the pages you don't involve yourself with and not ok with the pages you do involve yourself with. It's either correct or incorrect. You are completely incorrect regarding this. You need to stop deciding what is right and wrong, according to you. If you claim that German aircraft nomenclature does not show a gap inbetween model and variant, what's your reference for this? Troy von Tempest (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dornier Do 217, you may be blocked from editing. Denniss (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop your edit warring. Your own Teahouse request has shown multipleexamples of your wrongdoing but you simply deny it and continue. --Denniss (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss Then why don't you edit out all the "mistakes" on all the wiki pages that have the "incorrect" nomenclature? How is it you're happy to leave endless pages alone and fail to correct them all yet swing into action when I change them? Troy von Tempest (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WT:Air to attempt to agree a consensus on this issue here.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss It's not vandalism. If you're correct then you need to "correct" thousands of other "incorrect" examples across Wikipedia Troy von Tempest (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, regarding Do 217, how is it that you have reverted all my "mistakes", yet failed to edit out previous contributors mistakes from the same page? There are still many examples of the "incorrect" nomenclature remaining in the article, how can this be? Why haven't you changed them? Why is it ok for them to stay, but mine can not? Why didn't you change then months/years ago when they were first done? How can you possibly say my edits are wrong while leaving the exact same "errors" in the article? Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ford Model C. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still did'nt answer why relevant, factual content should not be allowed? How is this an edit war? Have you even read the added content in the Ford Model C article? Can you point out to me why it is not allowed, even though it is factual and referenced? Troy von Tempest (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple people disagree with you, and you continue to place the disputed text, that is an edit war - regardless of what merit you think your edits have. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DFS 331, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DFS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it, thanks! Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming the book "50 Years of Dodge Muscle Cars" on every tangentially related article you can find. The title alone makes it clear that it isn't relevant to a large portion of the nearly 50 articles you added it to. Do not add this as a reference to any article again unless you are citing specific information in the article through an inline citation and noting a specific page number so someone else can verify that the information does indeed appear in the book and isn't placed as merely a veiled advertisement for the book. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the cars are mentioned in the book, why is that not relevant? Should I make a further reading section instead? Would that satisfy you? Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Ford Model C, all that information is in the book. I even added a citation, yet you still deleted it, why? The citations include a SPECIFIC PAGE NUMBER so someone else can verify that the information does indeed appear in the book. Since when do referenced contributions fail to be acceptable? Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you revert my putting sources in alphabetical order? Why would you revert me removing non functional links? Troy von Tempest (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of "isn't placed as merely a veiled advertisement for the book". Are you saying I am making money from this? What is the framework for me to make a complaint against you for your offensive and totally baseless accusation? Troy von Tempest (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding links to a single source is severely frowned upon - see WP:LINKSPAM Dorsetonian (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When have I done this? What if the added content is relevant? How do I add content in various places throughout an article without repeating a source? What has this got to do with myself being accused, falsely, of placing a veiled advertisement for a book? Furthermore, since you have introduced yourself into this, why was my referenced addition, complete with citation, removed? Why is it a bad thing to add to a further reading section? Troy von Tempest (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned" how? You added it to articles for vehicles that didn't exist when the book was written, so your statement is patently false anyway. Irrespective of that, unless that book was used as a source for information in the article, it does not belong as a reference (or "bibliography"). Period. You added that book to so many articles so rapidly it's obvious that you weren't using it as a source.

Red links are not a problem and do not need to be removed as a matter of course. --Sable232 (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone through and reverted a couple hundred of your edits and will continue to do so for as long as you keep spamming references to the same books. You have repeatedly shown that you are adding these books without checking if they're even semi relevant to the article, as many of the pages you add them to are cars that were made long after any of these books were published. Further reading sections should be tailored specifically to the car the article is about. If you're creating further reading sections en masse within a few minutes of each other then you have entirely missed the point of their purpose. TKOIII (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - please stop the mass additions of these lists unless you are actually using the references to add content.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers are you saying "further reading" is not allowed on Wikipedia? Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII So a book on the history of the company is not relevant? Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are just adding the same books to every page remotely connected to the topic. That is not what WP is for.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, no, not when its the same 2 or 3 books being added to dozens of articles (WP:LINKSPAM), and when its done without consideration to the rules of WP:Further Reading such as:

1) the source is relevant to the article

2) A large part, if not all, of the work is about the subject of the article

3) the source provides information that goes beyond what is already included in the article

4) You aren't adding a source multiple times

Also this is assuming the books you choose are actually reliable and balanced sources in the first place, since I haven't read them myself. Further reading sections are fine, but they need to follow the WP conventions the same way as any other section does. TKOIII (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When four other editors all tell you the same thing, you may want to consider rethinking your stance. Perhaps you could bring it up in some other forum and have uninvolved editors weigh in, if you really think we are just somehow out to get you. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every edit of yours is tagged as minor. Please see WP:ME, because most of them clearly fall within the list of "what not to mark as minor changes". Dorsetonian (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Blohm & Voss BV 138

added a link pointing to Richard Vogt

Dornier Do 17

added a link pointing to Blitz

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]