Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Jules Agathias, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Thanks for uploading File:Morrison in January 2020.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Jules Agathias: I can see you are a relatively new user, and if this is the way you mean to go on, then maybe you should reconsider your approach.
I'd like you to reconsider your recent comment reversing this edit ie this seems like a deliberate attempt to jeopardise the content. I would refer you to the stipulation to assume positive content, and the explanation provided on the Talk Page. Which you didn't read.
As the editor who wrote this article, I would also like you to explain how the additional content improves the Lead, which is supposed to be a Summary of the content. Simply reversing edits without discussion is anti-collaborative, and disrespectful.
I also made edits to my own content; I spent three hours working on this yesterday, and you undid all of it, not just the changes to your content. I think you need to apologise for that.
Robinvp11 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Morning Robin! I reverted your edit simply because the previous one got the point of the campaign accross more accurately, not selectively and because I did not find it to be overly stretched either, which was your point the Talk Page. I just checked it out.
As you said very few people read articles beyond the first few paragraphs and I totally agree we must find a way to convey the essentials in the lead. The thing is I compared the previous version of the article with your edit of yesterday and was let's say... surprised by the parts you chose to get rid of and those you choose to add to "make the lead shorter". There were some important details such as british naval actions crippling the french economy either forgotten or blantantly ommited by the previous editor which was immediately added again after I reverted the page but I found your "brief summary" of the campaign much worse for a what was originally a fairly accurate description of it.
I didn't even realize it was you as I've came accross many of your contributions throughout the years, which are quite informative. I've been active on here for while now actually, I simply just didn't bother opening an account until a few months ago when I decided to write an article non existing here.
I've made some changes - nearly all the content is mine (I did a major rewrite a while back); I'm always happy to discuss, as I said on the TP, I'm brutal about my own edits as well.
The problem with some of the additions (particularly the aftermath) is that references need page numbers, and I'm not sure we need quite so much detail on Appius.
If there are things we need to change, happy to discuss.
No problem sir! Saw you edited the page already. It is a great middle ground. Straightforward yet got the point accross. Thanks! Have a good day (Jules Agathias (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
First, the source you have used, Mark Grossman, is just an author and has no specialization in this area. So he does not appear to be a reliable source.
Second, per WP:LEAD, only information present in the body of the article should be in the lead of the article. I do not see anything in the article that Conde... " is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in modern history". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
And, why did you removed Shaw, Christine, and Michael Mallett. The Italian Wars, 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe. Routledge, 2019?
Didn't realize you even replied to my previous post. Wait what? Since when is Clodfelter not considered a reliable source? There are plenty of "good" articles on wiki full of his works used as reference. Anyway I did link Tucker and Nolan... whose take matched Clodfelter.
Oh I removed it because I saw a dead italian link in there and assumed none of them were credible. I knew Tucker and Nolan were credible sources and thought Clodfelter was as well but oh well.
About Condé, I'm on it. I was planning to expand the article actually as the whole thing seemed to have been done in French then translated with Google translate or something. I am assembling the sources for the time being. (Jules Agathias (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Greetings! Nevermind, let's keep it the way it is. Just bought that book of Tucker and was reading it. I was a bit surprised to see the battle being deemed inconclusive. But Dupuy and Sandler are fairly reliable as well. Luxembourg won the battle but still did not take Mons. Hence why I originally opted for the tactical french victory and allied strategic victory but then just indeed up linking Tucker. No big deal, inconclusive works as well.
However please can we just stop with the whole Van Nimwegen thing? Hahaha I don't know but the man seems under the payroll of William of Orange's ghost or something. He is by far the most inconsistent of all the sources. His stats of the Battle of Seneffe are pretty baffling actually. That battle is considered a pretty big deal in France by historians because of how ridiculous (and I mean absolutely ridiculous) the casualties were for a battle of the 17th-18th century. The French had 10,000 dead, wounded or captured and the Allies depending on the sources between 25,000 and 35,000 casualties. That's the consensus here. Lynn states the French had 10,000 total casualties and the Allies 15,000 dead alone and "thousands and thousands more wounded". While Tucker states 10,000 total casualties for the French (all consistent so far) and specifically states 10,000 dead, 15,000 wounded and 5,000 captured (most of whom were also wounded) Which does not exactly match with Lynn's claim of 15,000 dead but the overall casualties all seem to be in the same vicinity.
Van Nimwegen however states around 8,000 casualties for the French and 10,000 for the Allies.... well... which is no biggie at all. France saw worse in that century and inflicted worse. I've been trying to give the man a chance before dismissing him but "an affiliate researcher" at the University of Utrecht as his only credentials is just not making it for me, sorry. (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)) The worst is that his stuff is linked all over articles related to the Wars of Louis XIV. (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Duly noted, that is a bizzare opionion of the facts and seems a very bias historian. Like I said if we get a consensus on the matter the result could be changed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah a certain user Robinvp11 and I have been trying to find a middle ground but to no avail. John A. Lynn has given and linked data from other respectable sources as well. But the point is which one of them to choose. Robin is opting for the lowest of the low as enumerated by Lynn, while I originally put those of Spencer Tucker, which also happen to be those of Dupuy. Here is the link to the page (126) for you to check out.(Jules Agathias (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I reverted your edit because it doesn't match the text, which is based on cited sources. Read the sources, which explain the issue. In simple terms, French armies contained three man units, called lances, consisting of a man-at-arms, a gros varlet and a petit varlet. The petit varlet, sometimes called a page, was a non-combatant, with horse care responsibilities, among others. The gros varlet was an armed horseman. Based on the three man lance, the suggestion is Curry has underestimated the number of combatants in the French army. I'll revert the post but , if you want to debate the issue, do it on the article talk page. Monstrelet (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Pontvallain; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
There is no edit war Serial. You were the one to "tweak" that part from its original phrasing and included the concept of english military superiority in open battle since the start of the war in 1337 if I remember correctly or was it Ian?! I simply pointed out it was an inaccurate claim and that the myth of invincibility of the English until Pontvallain actually begun with their extraordinary triumph at Crécy with French heavy cavalry having been decisively crushed. It is the first pitched battle of the war that truly drew medieval chroniclers' attention throughout Europe. The only land engagement on that scale prior to it, albeit of lesser importance in the Edwardian War, was the Battle of Saint-Omer between a Flemish force backed by English archers and French troops. That one didn't go oh so well for the Anglo-Flemish side. May I know why exactly my edit is bringing this level of controversy? (Jules Agathias (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at the various edits you've made recently, I feel this is turning into a contest and I'd like to head that off.
I'm happy to collaborate; what I find hard to deal with are changes made to the Lead without discussion, especially ones which are not reflected in the article. I would also suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines on writing a good lead.
I've put considerably more effort into these articles than you have; doesn't mean they can't be improved, and I've done my best to accommodate changes, but rewriting the Lead on Cassel looks like you're now making edits just because (most of what you've now replaced came from you, with a few changes from me).
If I look at other interactions on your Talk page, its clearly not just me.
We don't need to discuss this because I know you're going to give me a long list of good reasons for doing what you do; I have five kids, so I'm familiar with the process. I've done my best to accommodate your changes, even when I disagree with them; I'm not sure what your deal with Seneffe is, although I have a few ideas. You need to back off for a bit. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well Robin, I did not randomly revert it back. Have you taken a look at the Talk Page of the battle?! I did leave a message destined to you there. Totally up for a discussion.
And yes other users have pointed out yesterday that regardless of whether what I state is sourced or factual, you do not just randomly edit "featured articles" without a well established process..... process which I didn't follow as Pontvaillain and Sluys are both featured articles hence the comments on My Talk Page.
Edit: Nevermind.... this whole thing is getting tiresome. I suggest we keep the current estimates for the French (8,000 to 10,000 dead, wounded or captured) and the 14,000 (Bodart) to 15,000 (Van Nimwegen) dead, wounded or captured for the Allies (as they are close enough estimates). Let's get rid of Clodfelter as a source in the infobox. His 6,000 are ridiculous. Are we good? (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jules Agathias, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Napoleon have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Got it thanks. I thought, it was fine as long as the original material itself was directly linked. Not rewording them to my own liking was meant to meant to imply no personal biases on my part. I was not claiming those statements as my own. I'll be working on it, while avoiding plagiarism this time. Sorry! (Jules Agathias (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. I took down my off-topic ASIDE at ARW. But here it is for you as a wiki-editor anyway. I hope you enjoy it in the spirit intended.
ASIDE: Gaining Nova Scotia among the Maritime Provinces is one of history's coulda-oughta-shoulda's. As I understand it, Nova Scotians cheer for the New England Patriots American football team, not for some other team in some 'other' winter Canadian sport. And also you should know, my nephew and half of the resident adult male population in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania is certifiably hockey-crazy.
And, were Quebec to become the fifty-second state (say, paired with Puerto Rico), Quebec could adopt the Code Napoleon as has Louisiana. While Puerto Rico would enter as larger than 20 states with 4+ US Representatives, Quebec would enter as larger than 40 states with 10+ US representatives. Unfortunately for the US, Quebec would fall from 23% of the Canadian Commons to 2% of the US House. Nova Scotia on the other hand might enter the Union on a par with similar sized New England states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Alas, that's all just coulda-oughta-shoulda's, I fear.
On the other hand, in Canada, the US has a shared Saint Lawrence Seaway, a free-trade union progressing along, and their best friend in the international community, rivaled only by Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Oh, and there's Montreal, Molson beer, the 'Murdoch' TV series, Canadian Pacific Railway observation cars, and Gordon Lightfoot performed at Canada Day this year! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, I thought that a Belgian going to school in France you might have a kindred spirit for the Francophone world. (For the US, that's New Orleans and coastal Louisiana, and now Miami, Florida with the large numbers of Haitian immigrants. If you ever take a North American history course, you might enjoy exploring two important political impacts that French émigrés have had there, one in the 1600s among the Huguenots, and one in the 1700s fleeing the troubles of the Haitian Revolution; both centered their settlement in port cities as I remember; really influential in Charleston South Carolina in the Antebellum Period leading up to the American Civil War.
More connections: as a part of Virginia and US history, the Francophone settlement in what would become the southern half of Illinois owned slaves at the time of their becoming the Virginia Illinois County during the American Revolution. They and their former French-Indian allies joined with Colonel George Rogers Clark against the British (Clark was the older brother of the Clark in the Lewis and Clark Expedition through the Louisiana Purchase from France to the Pacific Ocean, for Jefferson). Jefferson, the Francophile, freed the biracial children of Sally Hemings in the same French-Caribbean manner for plantation owners with their slave offspring.
More connections: At the Virginia session of the territory to Congress for the Northwest Territory to become five states, federal law prohibited the introduction of slavery into the territory, but not its existing perpetuation. So slavery is not abolished in Illinois until the term of the second Governor of the State of Illinois, Edward Coles, a former Albemarle County, Virginia neighbor of Thomas Jefferson. Coles famously emigrated to Illinois with all his inherited slaves in tow, and crossing midway over the Ohio River, Coles issued one and all their freedom papers. (about half settled as freemen in Ohio, the others joined Coles to Illinois as homesteaders there.)
Hahaha Oh thanks! This is well appreciated sir. I was simply surprised reading that as it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I recently edited or posted. Did not pay much attention to the title until now either. I thought you mistakenly sent it to the wrong user.
I must admit I am not as well versed about the history of France's first colonial empire as I am about the second and haven't showed much interest to it either as the latter is much relevant to modern french geopolitics even if some relics of the first still remain as french overseas territories. But yes, it might be time to give it a proper look beyond the broader perspective.(Jules Agathias (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, without objection for five days, and fair warning I was going to do it, on a page that has had a fair amount of activity among authors coming and going at Talk and article Mainspace, I plugged in Rochambeau into the ARW Infobox as you recommended, in my preferred order, likewise the flag for George Rogers Clark and his listing below Lafayette per my Talk rationale. Good eye. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. Your current interest in 19th Century France might-could offer a line of investigation that may correspond with your own biography. David McCullough in The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (2011), wrote a fascinating treatment of American students of the 1800s benefitting from the free university education available in Paris 1830-1900 (basically sit for a preliminary examination for fluency in French, then admission to lectures and coursework on probation until you drop out, flunk out, or graduate). The publisher’s blurb describes them as “artists, writers, doctors, politicians, architects, and others of high aspiration”.
They included Charles Sumner, future US Senator from Massachusetts who studied humanities with Francophone black students; he became “the most powerful, unyielding voice for abolition in the U.S. Senate (1851-1874). Writer James Fenimore Cooper and painter Samuel F.B. Morse were student-friends; Morse got the idea for the telegraph in France. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes studied medicine in Paris; his fellow Parisian-trained doctors transformed American medicine. Painters included Mary Cassatt and John Singer Sargent, sculptors Augustus Saint-Gaudens. The American greats, no?
Of great interest to the diplomatic historian: Elihu Washburne studied in Paris, and was subsequently an American diplomat through the Franco-Prussian War. His memoir during the Franco-Prussian War’s Siege of Paris and the Commune are described by an American historian “for the first time”, so says the publisher. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Aside-aside, according to family lore, my Bavarian ancestor immigrated to the US to avoid the Prussian draft at the Franco-Prussian War, “walking over the Swiss Alps” to Naples then working a tramp steamer to New York City. He settled in Hoboken, NJ where his Lutheran church there still has services in German. Growing up, his father was adamant that he not have a German accent, so only English was spoken in the living room and dining room. Okay for the immigrant, he had a job as a bank clerk, but as an at-home housewife, Alfred’s mother never learned English, so he could only have real conversations with her in the kitchen.
- As a teen I had the opportunity to study Spanish, French, or German as a ‘foreign language’ to meet the high school graduation requirement. I asked Grandfather for advice about which language to study. He sharply replied that I was an American, I must learn Spanish. Americans who were not native English-speakers had Spanish as a mother-tongue, from Puerto Rico in New York, Cuba in Florida, or Mexico in California and Texas. As for German, “I fought the Germans in WWI, your father fought the Germans in WWII, you should have nothing to do with those people.” (!?) I thanked for his answer and we went into the dining room to family dinner.
- As a young Naval Academy graduate (presidential merit-appointment without a Congressman), Grandfather was on station at the American intervention in Vera Cruz, Mexico. There he learned Spanish for his “shore patrol” duties with the city police. He became fluent enough to learn amusing stories in the bars. Later as a US destroyer captain off Spain during the Spanish Civil War, he was tasked with extracting a dozen Puerto Rican (American) nuns from a nunnery behind Fascist lines. (The American ban on naval officers with German heritage from commanding a ship at sea during WWI had been lifted by 1920.) As the "officer in charge" of the detachment detail, he carried a pass signed by a Vatican papal official whom his ship had met on their way to Spain.
- The pass worked to pass through roadblocks set up by the Republicans, the Fascists, the Socialists and the Communists. But while returning to port at one road block, there were Anarchists. Their leader refused to acknowledge the authority of the Pope, or anyone for that matter. Grandfather kept his wits about him; to get the nuns out he had to negotiate for the nuns and their virtue. Within half-an-hour, he had collected some cigarettes from among the sailors in his party, and after telling three dirty jokes from the Vera Cruz bars, and throwing in 20 American tobacco cigarettes into the bargain, the Anarchists let the US Navy detail and their Puerto Rican nuns all pass unmolested. So the story goes.
This is all by way of saying, that if you are studying in Paris at university and becoming fluent in multiple languages, I consider it an honor to wiki-fence with you so you can master more of the American dialect, regardless of whether we agree or disagree. You have examples of greatness before you, wherever your path leads. And that, sir, is 'no shit', as they say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the valuable heads up. Tried to look if I could find an e-book version McCullough's book to avoid the shipping fee once I was ready to buy it but couldn't find any available online unfortunately. I am still essentially a broke sophomore haha. But added it to my list of purchases in the near future. I will be digging into all of this. I've always been particularly in the process of integration of Louisiana after it was bought by the US the early years of its administration. If you have another good book to suggest in which the subject is touched, I would be interested. Thanks in advance. I'll just refer to you as TVH. Same amount of letters and less formal. (Jules Agathias (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC))Reply
TVH is good. Thanks for taking the missive "in the spirit in which it was intended". The last sentence was a little abrupt, it should had ended with "as they say . . . on construction sites." Sorry. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I fear that the integration of Francophone and Roman Catholics into American social and political life has some very unhappy chapters. During one period of nativism in Louisiana, vigilantes (Klansmen?) nailed shut the doors and windows of a Catholic church and burned the entire congregation alive. See Nativism (politics)#United States.
Interestingly the stereotypes cut all sorts of ways. Many think of John Kennedy as the first Irish-ethnic President, but that was (Protestant) Andrew Jackson.
As a matter of politics and policing as social control, the first claim of self-government in an immigrant community is the political clout to man the police forces in their community. A problem in some neighborhoods in Paris today, where "mainstream media" reports there are some areas where police cannot enter. See also Chicago IL.
New York City is a famous example. English police were succeeded by the German police, who were then succeeded by Irish police. There is not only a political and power dimension. As a social-economic issue, the salaries of municipal workers are a constant source of income. Not only to the cop's family, but a cashflow in bad economic times to their extended family. The beauty of it is that the force of the law is administered in many ways with discretion at the hands of the officer assessing the situation. Can a situation be defused with a joke, a stern warning, or by arresting one or both parties in a dispute? Is it to be a warning, a citation, or an arrest?
I remember in a gentrified and touristy "Old Towne Alexandria" (Virginia) area, south of Washington Street, making my way down the hill on King Street to the waterfront with jazz floating out the second story windows of each bar. As I passed an ally, two patrolling police, man and woman, had stopped to gently warn a homeless man, that he was all right sleeping overnight in a deserted storefront door anywhere west of Washington Street, he just was not allowed to sleep amidst the town's night life. The man agreed and shuffled up the hill with his kit under his arm.
INSERT. On the other hand, as a boy looking out of a tourist bus stalled in Cairo traffic, I was alarmed at seeing a uniformed policeman literally kicking a boy down the sidewalk of the bridge we were on. My father sternly warned me that I needed to keep my voice down, because things are done differently outside the US, I did not need to be saying so for anybody else to hear. (Yes, he did have me read The Ugly American before we went abroad, and no, my childish naif surprise is NOT a grown-up argument for the wp:error American exceptionalism).
In Virginia of the 1850s, Richmond contractors induced German peasant single men to migrate to dig the James River and Kanawha Canal from Richmond west aiming to cross the Appalachian Mountains to compete with New York's wildly successful Erie Canal. In a work week of six work days and one day off (Sunday) ethnic Germans, both Protestant and Catholic, drink beer. That offended the English-ethnic fundamentalist Christians, the Methodists and the Baptists. Their policing of the immigrant neighborhoods landed a lot of German-ethnic workers in jail, costing them fines and losing them daily wages. Letters home said, "Don't come here.", so the contractors failed, just one in an extensive list of why the canal never got built . . . but I digress.
Seriously look for a good lecturer in the field of social psychology. That's about the mentally healthy, with important contributors to the field (well, as of 50 years ago. Sorry, I am a bona fide "geezer"). I especially liked Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Robert Coles (psychiatrist) (Children in Crisis series); I am sure you can identify their "successors" or "disciples" in the current literature. Especially important to my way of thinking for practical application in education and marketing and politics are Jean Piaget for intellectual reasoning with others, and Lawrence Kohlberg for moral persuasion with others - - the old "industrial psychology", versus the "abnormal psychology" of Freud et al).
A specialty within "social psychology" includes a field related "social control", which is concerned with "small group" dynamics, "diads" to about a dozen - the number of "significant others" someone can maintain within their intimate social orbit: to add one at the outer limit has the effect of mentally subtracting one from the forefront of one's consciousness. It seems that that is just the way our species operates as social beings. The practical application is to understand how families and organizations (offices, task groups, classrooms) align member behaviors by "small group" dynamics to maintain their sense of "group awareness" or "group identity".
Of interest to the military historian, an infantry "squad" on the NATO model numbers 12-14; in the WWI era with trenches, USMC tried 16-20, but with that number, the squad was found to be beyond the effective span of "command and control" that a three-striper sergeant could maintain once maneuvering his riflemen in the field. ("Every Marine a rifleman.", so our lawyers, pilots, bakers, and warehousemen all take time out to re-qualify on the range once every year, an element of that ongoing "group identity" social construction, you see.) More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good lord... I don't even know where to begin at this point. There seems to be so much more to know about than I currently do, it is almost depressing haha. The wikipedia article about nativism was fairly informative and not just in the context of the development of US politics. And to think I had free access to it all along.
For the authors, I might check them out. I remember us having briefly discussed Jean Piaget in high school... but nowhere near extensively as you might imagine. Gonna have to dig it all up. I will try to sample everything you mentioned here and in your previous posts to figure out some sort of adequate chronology. The US does have quite a fascinating and complex history despite its relative youth as a nation. I have a lot of work on my hands. (Jules Agathias (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If I may be so bold: I’d like to rejoice at your chance in this internet time to be an international scholar in a way once permitted only to the privileged few. You can now range into primary and secondary sources worldwide in multiple languages in a way that was once very restricted. The digital libraries and archives have published and continue to expand their offerings online, sources that were once kept exclusive to visitors in the rare book room cellars with temperature and humidity controls.
Then, half a century ago, you had to be enrolled in a doctoral program or have an advanced degree with a university position, and come with the written recommendation of your department chair. -- I had to threaten to sue the Marshall-Wythe Law Library as an enrolled W&M grad student in Education in order to gain access to their volumes of the 'Acts of Assembly' to research reapportionment of Congressional Districts and photocopy the relevant bills enacted into law (after each census: 1790, 1800, 1810, ...), ALL now available online. -- Then, you had to have the connections or wealth to provide for your accommodations and meals for the time you travelled and the length of your stay to the remote research facility. You could not take into the room anything but a pencil and paper for notes in your white-gloved hands. Now, you not only can read and take notes ‘in situ’, you can copy-paste or screen-shot paragraphs and pages for your own files stored in the cloud. In extremis, you could conceivably ‘shop’ your thesis or dissertation to another faculty if your review board becomes obstreperous.
I have a ‘bona fide’ genius friend who makes over six-figures each year as a consultant in computer programming, and he has done so each year for over thirty years I have known him. He has NOT attained his doctorate from John Hopkins University because his dissertation director left in a faculty dispute, and the replacement disagreed with the methodology in my friend’s research. After several graduate courses sideways, and much negotiation throughout the department, end of story. Likewise, another friend in chemistry wanted to trace the distribution of a chemical substance in plant growth. I suggested tagging the plant nutrient with an isotope, and trace it by the same technique physicists do. Okayed by her thesis director, she worked on the project for six months in physics coursework, just to be told by her department head that the methodology in a physics lab was not 'chemistry', so her master’s thesis would be disallowed. End of story. I felt really bad. YOU do not have the same feudal constraints by the remnants of the medieval university on YOUR academic freedom, your research is portable on the cloud. Copy everything onto your own account for insurance.
Pardon? Which accounts are linked to me? Jules Agathias is my only user account on this site. I have absolutely nothing else. Are you sure this is not a mistake on your part?
All I can possibly think of is that I mostly use my phone to edit and often realize that some of my previous edits are attributed to an IP adress instead of my username as I never register my passwords on my e-mail and other of my accounts online for safety, preferring only tap them when logging in. It is indeed quite troublesome on wikipedia as an account is not necessary to have a access to the site as is the case with other accounts, not being logged easily be forgotten. So I often log in to continue to prevent all of my contribution going to waste as my work is not being credited to me. Again, I have absolutely no secondary account on wikipedia I use.
May I know which user accounts are linked to me? And why exactly that happen? My last recurrent edits are mostly about "France", the "Franco-Spanish-War", the "Battle of Rocroi" and the "American Revolutionary War" and "Napoleon"? In neither of them did I even engage in an edit war. My last point of contentions with editors were the Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659) and the American War of Independence. The latter is being discussed on the talk page and the first was an edit after a user named Robinvp11 edited the page after me. Went to look again, and in neither of them, did I see anything ressembling, not just me, but anyone at all switching user accounts. (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC))Reply
You are blocked for IP socking and you log in and out using your phone all the time. You have indeed edit warred and IP hopped. Your logged out editing is avoiding scrutiny. From now on, you should only edit while logged in and you will be blocked if you don't. You may file an unblock request and another checkuser can review this if you wish. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Evening! Having read the initial message, I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and potentially for having done it while evading blocks, something which was not allowed. But I've never been blocked, nor did I publish anything misleading on this site. If the issue revolves around my edits with my account and those while not being logged in as you now said then fair enough. I've had disagreements with a few users over the phrasing/description of events or biography of historical figures as they could be either quite misleading or confusing but never wrote or given deceiving informations nor were the issues raised not voiced while editing the pages. But oh well... Thanks for the guide for appealing blocks though. (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I’m not writing what I want. Some phrases such as "We might say" simply are non-encyclopedic in wikipedia as it's non-neutral. See WP:NPOV; opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I don't want to cause any edit war, I'm willing to talk Bat-Rat guy (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Bat-Rat guy (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It seems you have been going through my history and simply reverting everything I edit. Only revert when necessary please. You also have the right to edit the information and add sources. But you are claiming my edits are arbitrary and you keep reverting instead of editing.
I added sources to the additions I made or I reverted to the previous text when a subjective term was added.
You could also choose to edit the parts you think are incorrect (sourced of course) instead of reverting my complete edit. The battle of mons-en-pevele for example had for the French the low estimates of JF Verbruggen and the high estimates of Kelly DeVries. While the Flemish side only had the high estimates of Kelly DeVries. I simply added the missing lower estimates of the Flemish side to make it consistent and symmetrical but you also reverted this.
You say you are a Belgian student but you are preventing me from fixing the history of our country on this site.
If you do not stop with this behaviour I will have to bring in moderators to sort this out.
I will now restore most of my edits but I will rewrite sections and add sources.
If you revert again you will cross the boundary of 3 reverts, please think twice before doing this.
CineadAnDuine
This is truly laughable. "Thinking twice about editing" anything is what you're telling me after random edits on 3 pages. Yes, I checked your edit history and am also in possession of the source material you're using...... which is why... wait for it... all the pages were restored. And I am for arbitration if it is what it takes. I don't know if you have taken a look at all those pages you've edited but I wrote significant sections of them and have them all on watch. I am always therefore notified of changes made on them. I didn't randomly go around looking for a guy with your username spending his time editing articles related to Flemish history, sorry. The Battle of Mons-en-Pevele in particular is a mediocre article as you can tell by reading the battle section. I didn't touch much yet as I am still assembling the necessary sources. Nolan, Tucker and DeVries and Verbruggen are on hand, but I am still waiting to have access to the works of others who also documented it. There is no vendetta going on here against you. Your edits seem pretty random and arbitrary as I said, even though you speak of acting on the basis of objectivity. Wikipedia articles are not a vehicle for nationalist takes. I do not bother with such nonsense. Yes I am Belgian as well as a French citizen as my mother is French. Your edits of terms such as "decisive" or "humiliating" to substitute them with "indecisive" or "inconclusive" particularly odd. I do not consider calling a fairly documented battle indecisive or inconclusive to be anymore objective than calling it an indecisive or inconclusive engagement while "French victory" stands as a result in the infobox. The page is already bad enough. You don't need to make it worse. If you want to properly edit them with sources properly attached and all, then great. What you're doing so far isn't contributing anything to the page beyond what seems seems to be historical copping. Those parts you edited as you can check weren't even originally written by me. Your pretty liberal takes on the excerpts from Verbruggen are also odd as well. You seem to simply line up disjointed parts in the material source to suit what you intend to write. Not actually even paraphrasing what is written. It is not the way sourcing works as it is pretty much misleading. I was planning of talking about your edits those particular pages with Kansas Bear in the evening anyway.
Oh for the strength of the respective forces and casualties... I checked it again and indeed I mistakenly reverted it back. I'll check the book to see if it matches once I am home. I previously listed a minimum of 3,000 casualties on the French side and 7,000 on the Flemish as per Tucker. I think it was Kansas who added DeVries and Verbruggen's estimates on the French side. (Jules Agathias (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC))Reply
I did not invent the words indecisive or inconclusive myself. Those were the words before they were changed to decisive and soundly defeated. You can check the history for that. You accuse me of nationalism but you do realize you come over just as much as a nationalist? You say you have French nationality ... I'm not a nationalist and I try to portray the history as correct as possible. It's not like I turned it into a Flemish victory. I left all sentences that allude to French political victory intact. I simply removed emotionally charged words. I do not understand why this provokes such a reaction from you.
The Battle of Mons-en-Pevele was a murky business from the very beginning. Sources contradicted each other from the start. It's time we depoliticize the battle. What is certain is that the County of Flanders was subjugated after, but not to the extent that it returned under the direct control of the French crown. The situation reverted mostly to the status quo of 1297 (albeit with reparations needing to be paid to France). The text should reflect that. Please do talk to Kansas Bear, if not I'll talk to him myself.
But I do agree that the page needs work, but I don't see how I made it worse by removing unsourced strongly worded sentences.
Please do not turn this into an edit war and make us both look like fools. Edit with sources instead of reverting. I'll be watching your edits as I have the books on hand. CineadAnDuine (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CineadAnDuine, I could not find any information that supports the OR-ish paragraph cited to Verbruggen. Please post a quote and page number on the talk page to verify. Thanks!--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kansas Bear I shall do so, but is it a problem that it's in Dutch? Should I also translate it?
As for 'Guy was captured and the Flemish conquest of Holland was halted.' I had changed this to Zeeland because I would be wildly surprised Flanders ever invaded Holland itself, as far as I have read it was Zeeland (which was under the control of Holland) which was invaded. So I assumed the user had incorrectly cited Kelly DeVries. I could be mistaken though. CineadAnDuine (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi: I wrote the original version of this article. I disagree with your revision of the introductory section. You made at least one claim that was incorrect: Davout did not repulse Miloradovich's attack. In truth, Miloradovich was pushed back by a counterattack made by the corps of Eugene, Poniatowski, and Ney. Also, it is not correct to say that the Russians continued to "harass" the retreating French after the initial stage of the battle. Rather, the Russians opened up a sustained and devastating cannonade using up to 120 artillery pieces. I disagree also that the French losses were high "compared" to the Russians; in actuality, the French losses were high by any measure (please read my footnotes where I address this issue). Shall we discuss, and revert the edit to the original version? Best, Kenmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C67F:99F0:59B7:C703:8642:1556 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
La règle des trois échecs prend ici tout son sens; or if you prefer, you've been given multiple opportunities to work co-operatively in the past and taken none of them. That means living with the consequences and/or doing something about it. Which you haven't - you've just changed the approach (see below).
The biggest obstacle to taking you seriously is not edit warring per se (plenty of people do that) but the tone of your edits, which range from faux astonishment anyone could disagree ("Good Lord!"), to accusations of bias (the Fontenoy article etc). That hasn't changed. Recent examples include;
(1) "The source material is there for all to read, hoping some people here actually do" (PS; good idea to get the page number right next time); I'm more than happy to compare our relative willingness to search out different Sources, so I admit to finding that especially annoying
(2) "Sweden does appear in most sources as an ally of France in the war through the related conflict but hey whatever" ie I've completely missed the point and still don't understand what a "Belligerent" is after this specific topic has been endlessly discussed but I'm still right; and
(3) "Reworded the lead mostly because I realized the "defeating the allied forces with regularity" part, even though accurate, was spicy enough to offend someone" ie not only bias but poor Jules is unable to make their (legitimate) point due to fear of offending others.
How do any of these comments help? I constantly adjust my own wording to make it simpler and remove excess material and do my best to avoid including gratuitous or belittling insults in my edits. That earns me the right to expect the same from others and until you're prepared to do that, do not bother leaving me messages on my TP. Walk the walk. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
== Editing; avoiding unnecessary stress ==
La règle des trois échecs prend ici tout son sens; or if you prefer, you've been given multiple opportunities to work co-operatively in the past and taken none of them. That means living with the consequences and/or doing something about it. Which you haven't - you've just changed the approach (see below).
The biggest obstacle to taking you seriously is not edit warring per se (plenty of people do that) but the tone of your edits, which range from faux astonishment anyone could disagree ("Good Lord!"), to accusations of bias (the Fontenoy article etc). That hasn't changed. Recent examples include;
(1) "The source material is there for all to read, hoping some people here actually do" (PS; good idea to get the page number right next time); I'm more than happy to compare our relative willingness to search out different Sources, so I admit to finding that especially annoying
(2) "Sweden does appear in most sources as an ally of France in the war through the related conflict but hey whatever" ie I've completely missed the point and still don't understand what a "Belligerent" is after this specific topic has been endlessly discussed but I'm still right; and
(3) "Reworded the lead mostly because I realized the "defeating the allied forces with regularity" part, even though accurate, was spicy enough to offend someone" ie not only bias but poor Jules is unable to make their (legitimate) point due to fear of offending others.
How do any of these comments help? I constantly adjust my own wording to make it simpler and remove excess material and do my best to avoid including gratuitous or belittling insults in my edits. That earns me the right to expect the same from others and until you're prepared to do that, do not bother leaving me messages on my TP. Walk the walk. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Is all of this truly coming from the man who's spent much of his time accusing me in his own summary of edits on various articles of being random users vandalizing pages while I wasn't here?! Saw this yet again yesterday night when I took a look at the article on the Battle of Entzheim. Bravo! Yes, you truly are the bacon of objectivity around here as I obviously can only be the only person around here having issues with some of your edits or the way you narrate (twist) what's written in the original sources. You did it with de Périni, and at times with Browning and with Lynn. Even Van Nimwegen whose book on the Dutch military revolution I purchased online when we were having the same issues a few months ago turned out to be much less biased than I thought due to your edits and pretty informative.
Do not worry, I won't be leaving anything on your page anymore. Let's not waste each other's time. In case of contention on specific articles we happen to have a common interest in, the administrators will chime in. (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Francia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Chartres. 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.)
Of course it states that it is an "European" company. You linked Schneider's company profile on the societas europaea website. France is not an EU member state or European country?! And what about a board of directors is supposed not to make it French? Your arguments are confusing as hell. Nearly all major companies have those, no? What is surprising about this? Schneider is a Societas Europaea, the same way Allianz, SAB and LVMH for example are. They all still have a home country and their headquarters are also located in said country of origin. Allianz is a German multinational company, SAB is a German multinational corporation, LVMH is a French multinational holding company and Schneider is French multinational company. It is why they all appear in all the official rankings of their respective countries' largest companies. Fortunes's Global 500 and Forbes aren't listed there for no reason. Here https://fortune.com/company/schneider-electric/global500/ and https://www.forbes.com/top-multinational-performers/list/ (Schneider at n°98) or this article by Corporate Knights as linked on the "se" website itself https://www.corporateknights.com/leadership/top-company-profile-schneider-electric-leads-decarbonizing-megatrend25289/ or the company profile on Reuters https://www.reuters.com/companies/SCHN.PA.
All the French and German companies previously listed are nothing like Airbus (also registered as a Societas Europaea), which does not officially appear in the rankings of France's and Germany's largest companies because it is a joint European venture. Schneider isn't any of that. I don't think you actually understand what an SE is despite there being a pretty reliable article about it on this very site (Societas Europaea). The SE classification neither erases the registration in the EU member state the company originates from nor does it supplant national law (in this case French company law). As you can see on the SE wikipedia article itself in the "Registrations" section, Schneider Electric SE is registered in the nation in which its corporate seat is located... which also happens to be its home country: France. There is no controversy here. (Jules Agathias (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You need to Understand this, Linked or not. People don't see where the weapon is. I don't mind if you update it but I just want to tell you that The weapon you put on the picture dosen't have a clear shot. VSM L31 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The pictures I added are exactly the variants used in their current state. I didn't just wake up and decided to do all that work randomly. It took me weeks and I'm not even done yet. Even the pictures of the foreign forces I've chosen (because I could not find French ones that met the valid licence requirements for wikimedia) were because they're either the same used by the French military or nearly identical to them in terms of specs. Your edits aren't helping with anything beyond the strange argument that they're "better seen". That's not an MCX Virtus, you know that right? That's not the custom-made PGM Ultima Ratio used by the French SF units.... that's not an M4A1 or an M16 of the 1er RPIMa.... The whole point is, again, that people are more than free to click on the articles to get a better idea on the weapons and their variants or google them if they want to see more picture-wise if they aren't available on the on wiki itself. The articles I linked are there for nothing?! Jules Agathias (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I do not understand what you mean by "this does not constitute a source". Can you explain to me what's the problem here? I've cited both primary and secondary (Academic) sources for all portions I inserted to the article. Have you read any material surrounding the topic of this article? English ships directly participated in the fighting, they did, in fact, shell the French and assisted in repulsing several of the attacks. I had cited a correspondence by Sir W.S.S. to Lord Nelson, and can cite more primary anecdotal accounts surrounding this, superfluous as it is, on this, which apparently to me you have not bothered checking. To this end I even provided a link to archive.org were you can examine my citation, so all you had to do was read it, but for some reason you decided to remove first and ask questions later.
The message on my 'talk page' was not related to your 'complaint', by the way. It is a bot message regarding some link disambiguation (Mustapha Pasha). The citations I have provided are rather clear and valid, so I do not see what is the problem. Is it about formatting? If so, feel free to format them as you see fit yourself, but please do not outright remove them unless if you have a very strong reason otherwise. Sormando (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
"According to Mustapha Pasha" constitutes as much of a source as Napoleon's own correspondances or memoirs. They, in both cases, remain personal (and contemporary) takes reported, not assertions by modern historians. The former do not take precedence over the latter. And yes, I did read Connelly, Pawly and Isenberg's books (in case you didn't notice, some of the page references in the articles were done by myself). I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong (I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it) and they highlight that according to Seid Mustafa (so Mustapha Pasha), only 8,000 of the Ottoman soldiers were in a condition to face the French at the time (likely also referencing the correspondance). They were certainly close but not quite right as Mustapha actually had stated only 7,000 men were, which is why removed the former about the 8,000 and maintained the 7,000 claim as it was actually what Mustapha said.
The suggestion was that some of the men who faced the French troops at Abukir suffered from disease by the time the Ottoman army landed at Aboukir Bay. However, nowhere was it suggested in the sources on the page and the ones you yourself linked, that 7,000 troops represented the strength of the Ottoman army. We clearly know more than 7,000 men were there considering the casualties. The choice of putting that first and foremost in the infobox (and above Connelly and Pawly's estimates at that) is not strange?! I also purchased Strathern's book after your edits (I properly linked it in the references at the end of the article as you hadn't done so, which you then removed again seemingly......). I read the portion relating to Abukir. Strathern reported what Mustapha had stated to Smith about the state of his army (having just a few thousand men in his force fit to fight the enemy) just like the French historians mentioned above did. Those weren't personal estimates on the Ottoman strength he gave.
Regarding British involvement: there was a lack of consistency. Britain is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox next to the Ottoman Empire. You can add it, which then justifies adding Smith to the commander section or leave both Britain and Smith out. I chose to do the latter until it was addressed in the Talk Page. That was my only issue in that regard, so you do what do what you see fit. Jules Agathias (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello Jules.
Thank you for the reply.
It seems your issue is much more subjective than I had perceived. The 15,000-18,000 figure is actually derived from Napoleon's own memoirs, it's not an "academic estimate" (if has there ever existed such research on this topic, which is not present in neither Connelly neither Pawly nor Strathern's scholarship (Connelly does not even provided any footnotes or citations for the figures presented in his authority, in-fact he goes over the battle in whole in a single page, little more than a short passage), they all, ubiquitously, derive the numbers from contemporary sources). It is disappointing to know that you have been deleting so much information from the page because you wish to cherry-pick specific sources to your liking, and discard other ones, just as valid, not to your liking.
I won't dawdle over semantics, or what figure is more credible than the other, or who was more credible, that's obviously very subjective territory, susceptible to bias (which is apparent to be the case here). But even in broaching this topic, it's obvious that a commander of an army is more credible to knowing its intricacy than its enemy (Napoleon). And the numbers you put up over those are, as I've mentioned, derived from Napoleon's memoirs, which isn't really a level-headed contemporaneous account, nor is it held up to that standard by most academicians or historians, having been tarred and feathered for exaggerating victories and downplaying shameful episodes like the massacre of the Turks at Jaffa and the mass euthanasia of bubonic plague victims after the defeat at Acre.
There is no problem with displaying multiple numbers in the informational box, provided each has its own citation. It is helpful and informational to include as much information as possible in an article.
"However, nowhere was it suggested in the sources on the page and the ones you yourself linked, that 7,000 troops represented the strength of the Ottoman army"
I am not sure what page you are referring to. I have cited 3 sources, 2 regarding this topic. Sidney Smith has given the figure of the Ottoman army as 7,000 men (5,000 under Mustapha Pasha, ferried on the Turkish flotilla, and 2,000 ferried in the British flotilla under Hassan Bey). Sidney Smith has discoursed considerable written material on the battle, and has diligently referred to the Ottoman army that was deposited off Alexandria as, verbatim, "fit only to carry on a harassing war of posts, under the protection of the naval force". Make of that what you will.
The other citation, by Strathern, also states (with ambiguity) that Mustapha Pasha stated he had "7,000 troops in a state to fight after the long sea voyage", Strathern then states that this is "corroborated by Sidney Smith's estimate", the estimate, I assume, is the one referred to above. Strathern mentions in the same paragraphs that other first-hand witnesses placed the strength of the Ottoman army at 9,000, and that only French sources are the ones that go above the 10,000 mark.
It's safe to assume, then, that the consensus of total Ottoman troops present off Alexandria probably hardly totaled more than 10,000. But this is SYNTH and WP:NOR and has no place on a Wikipedia page.
I am not satisfied with the explanation you have presented, nor am I satisfied with an abject lack of insight on this topic that you have displayed - such as your ignorance of the British participation in the battle, and your asinine refusal to verify and read the material presented to you instead of deleting it outright, for it seems you decided to remove what you do not like willy-nilly instead of doing a basic verification process. I will restore the information I have added to the page since there is no credible or verifiable reason to remove it, and it will aid the reader by providing information WP:NPOV in providing the reader with as much information as possible so they can draw their own conclusion.
Therefor, in light of the fact that my additions to the page do not violate any rule, and are verified, backed and substantiated, I will restore the information I have added. In regards to the small formality of adding "England" to the information box, you can do that if you want, but it is just a formality and not very necessary.
Your recent editing history at Battle of Abukir (1799) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mr. Jules, I am still waiting for a reply on why you have reverted my edits. This is the 3rd time you have reverted these edits, which constitutes edit warring. A quick scroll through your talk page has communicated to me that, in general, you are up to no-good with this behavior, as searching for "edit war" turns up 12 results here. I will wait for you to provide some explanation for removing my contributions to the page. If a satisfactory consensus is not reached I am afraid you leave me with no other options. Sormando (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
This isn't my first rodeo here. I've been around for a while, thank you very much. I am glad to see you're also aware of this, because it sure seemed you weren't.
Good! That's more than reasonable as we were seemingly heading nowhere. We'll let an admin settle this. I can't address your other message because the "Reply" option appears locked. Jules Agathias (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's quite odd, I replied to it and it certainly appears not blocked. I'd love to reach a consensus, but you still have not replied or made a verified reason on why you are deleting information from the article. If so, please reply here. Sormando (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I quote your obvious biased revert reason "Format restored. Many of these aren't even hypersonic weapons. They're ballistic missiles.... Ballistic misiles have reaching Mach 5+ for over 60 years now. It is not some novel tech."
First you are removing sourced quotes
Second, Fattah-1 reaches Mach 13+ at its last stage while maneuvering at the same time
Third i ask you to name me a MaRV ballistic missile reaching mach +13 at its final stage while also maneuvering, not even asking you to name a "60 year old" missile, but even modern Russian/US/Chinese/Europe counterparts
Fourth, the second version of it is an HCM, whether you like it or not, it follows a CM path, name us a cruise missile reaching Mach 5+ that dates from 60 years old or even modern ones beside what is listed in the article
Fifth, an hypersonic weapon doesn't have to be an HGV to be considered as an hypersonic weapon, i don't know if it is due to your biased view of Iran or simple lack of knowledge, an hypersonic weapon can also follow a ballistic path
You will probably call it Iranian propaganda or "photoshops" as the community did at the time with other weapons such as air defense and drones, until they are get combat proven and suddenly change the tone of the articles into Schrodinger Iran narrative
There are only two answers to this
1- Lack of knowledge
2- Compulsive revert because of an hatred oozing the Iran-bashing rhetoric while also portraying Iran as a threat to the world, thus going into the Schrodinger Iran perspective
Tsunet (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. An edit that you recently made to Battle of Taillebourg seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to 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! ——Serial # 09:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Pontvallain; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
Hello Jules Agathias, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Napoleon have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sormando (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)