Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 28 November 2007

• Be fearless

Archive

• Archive of previous comments (????-November 2007)

Angolan Civil War

Hi, I saw you removed the infobox image on Angolan Civil War. While you are correct in that the tank is Croatian, the picture is of combat in the Angolan Civil War. Cuba bought many tanks from Eastern Europe which it used in the 70s and 80s when it invaded Angola. Would you mind restoring it? If there is any question as to the accuracy of its placement, see the Spanish Misplaced Pages article - they also use it in the infobox there. Jose João 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is of a Croatian T-55 at Barbara Range, an SFOR drive-around-and-blow-stuff-up area near Glamoč, in Bosnia. There is no apparent connection between that picture and the Angolan Civil War. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? How do you know the tank was in Glamoc? I added it based on what I found at the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Jose João 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The winter-weight, rather un-Cuban-looking uniforms and the residual snow at higher elevations on the hillsides tipped me off, and the summary on the image page (Image:HVO Army T-55 Glamoc firing MG.jpg) confirmed it. I've also gone and removed the images from es.wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha thanks. Jose João 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into another, related article at es.wiki (es:Guerra de la frontera de Sudáfrica), and I've found more of the same pattern of semi-random image choices. The picture in the infobox is of a Eurocopter belonging to the (post-reunification) governement of Hong Kong, there's a picture of a Vektor Y3 automatic grenade launcher that I'm not sure had even been invented at the time of the border war, the illustration of a MiG-23 has it with Polish markings, the image of the UN peacekeeper is from the Bosnian War, and the group picture of UN personnel is of Czech members of the United Nations Guards Contingent in Iraq. I would remove the images from the article myself, but my Spanish isn't good enough to adequately explain what I'm doing, and I'd likely be reverted as a petty vandal. I'm assuming, based on your bringing things from es.wiki to en.wiki, that you know Spanish. If so, would it be possible for you to do the removal and tell the es.wiki people why it needed to be done? I just don't trust Babelfish enough for that kind of translation. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Barings Bank and Barings Bank collapse

Barings Bank collapse looks to be a split from Barings Bank. Given that the main bank article really isn't that long, I don't think it needed to be split out, and redirecting your collapse article to the Barings Bank#Events leading to Barings Bank's collapse section would be preferable. However, before I go do anything, I wanted to ask you why you split the collapse information out to a separate article. thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Good call on this, I was gonna remove it myself. LOL what a load of rubbish tho, I love how he thought that could put something in the article that he's basically made up, with no mention of evidence! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

Sorry to undo much of your work; I'll explain my reasons here:

• Your major change was to put references into a single line of text. Of course this makes no difference to the reader's view of the article, but as an editor, I much prefer references that are broken up into separate lines. I find that this makes it vastly easier to read the text of an article while working on an edit. As a general rule, I think it would be wise to ask in the talk page of an article before putting the time and effort into making an article-wide formatting change like this. Doing so would help to avoid wasting your own time and effort.
• I've kept some of your non-formatting edits, but with others I disagree with your changed wording, and I've RV'd those. For example: His tactics, bullying opponents and accusing large numbers of federal government employees of Communist party-membership and Soviet loyalty, led the United States Senate to censure him. This wording is problematic in several places. "Bullying" in this context is quite vague, with no clear meaning. McCarthy didn't so much "accuse large numbers of federal employees", but rather "made unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists in government." He made many specific accusations, but more notable were his generalized claims of infiltration. It's true that McCarthy's methods led the Senate to censure him, but the earlier wording, "his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." is more complete and therefor more correct.
• You shortened the introduction section some. Personally, I'm inclined to prefer minimal introductions, as longer intros just repeat material that's in the main article. However, other editors have pointed out to me that WP guidelines call for an intro section that's a few paragraphs long on an article of this length. So after some discussion I've accepted that view.
• The "popular culture"/"trivia" section has been discussed by the active editors on the article, and the consensus was that it's a valid addition to the article, and that the {{trivia}} tag isn't called for.
• In some cases, you've changed wording with--to my eye--neither negative nor positive effect. I've left some of these edits out of the current version simply because that was the easier path.

If you think I've left out any important changes you made, and if you think the "cleanup" tag is still warranted, I (and other editors) will be happy to discuss this with you on the article's Talk page.
RedSpruce (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)