User talk:PRRfan

Foster Home/Sylvan Plantation edit

Hi, I have a question on edit you made to the above article [1]. Is there a specific reason you referred to it as a forced labour farm rather than a slave plantation? The underlying link to Plantation complexes in the Southern United States is obviously the ideal one, but I am curious as to whether there is some nuance in the current debate in US that I am unaware of that might of guided your choice of words. Skullcinema (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good question. For decades, mainstream American culture propagated the myth that enslaved African Americans benefited from or even enjoyed their situation.[2] [3] Accounts by and about tour guides and docents at plantation museums show that they still get questions like "But the slaves were happy, weren't they?"[4] So "slave plantation", while hardly a euphemism, nevertheless fails at some level to convey what was happening on these farms. Use of the term "forced-labor"—generally along with "slave plantation", not instead of it—is meant to help Wikipedia articles be more explicit about their subject and thereby to more properly inform the reader. PRRfan (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, as stated I did wonder whether this was a US-specific form of words. I will note that from outside the US, unfortunately, a euphemism is pretty much what it looks like. The fact that the building was the centre of a large slave cotton farm is otherwise absent from the text and the term forced-labour often has much more benign connotations elsewhere. But as I guess most of the page's readers are likely to be from inside the US it may be more appropriate (but perhaps less accurate) to leave it as is. Skullcinema (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I think you're right: "slave plantation" should be added. The point is not to avoid that description but to underline it. PRRfan (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, have sorted it. Skullcinema (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Skidmore

For the record, the source I provided does mention the firm, under their common initialism SOM. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that later, after I'd ginned up a source that spelled it out. PRRfan (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't undo edits solely based on edit summaries. ɱ (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's good policy; I'll try not to do so in the future. And thank you (and me) for doing the work requested by the cn tags, which have led to solid improvements to the article. PRRfan (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Rudolph Hall

Thanks and commendations for your work on improving this article, which had been bugging me for a little while. I'm glad someone with more time, more knowledge, more skill, or a combination of those was able to do the work. Onward! Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just more time, I think. Thanks! PRRfan (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request for Dahua Technology

Hi PRRfan, I am working on improving the Dahua Technology article. As you are an experienced editor and have previously worked on the China Investment Corporation page (whose subsidiary, Central Huijin Investment, partially owns Dahua), I thought you may be interested in reviewing my edit request on the Dahua Technology talk page. I'd appreciate if you would implement the two remaining points which have not yet been addressed. Of course, I am happy to discuss and hear your thoughts. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Civil War Centennial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War reenactment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

P&W

I had to revert one of your edits because it created an unsourced paragraph, which we obviously can't have in a FA, especially one actively on the main page. You can do your changes again, as long as we don't lose any citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And nice work on the FA! PRRfan (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevy Chase Lake & Kensington Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock Creek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Norfolk and Western 611

I've added a lot of new information for the N&W 611 page, using my copy of the Norfolk and Western Class J: The Finest Steam Passenger Locomotive book. I was wondering if you can copy-edit it for me. 611fan2001 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I recently wrote a page about the locomotive's wreck in 1956. 611fan2001 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're on fire! PRRfan (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 😁 611fan2001 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I even reworked the Powhatan Arrow page! 611fan2001 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garden Club of America Entrance Markers in Washington, D.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Earnest Will, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSIS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Union Bank of Delaware

Hello PRRfan since you created this article: coming across this image, I was wondering if that is the building. If positive, it could be added to the article and ond Wikidata. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do note that a substantial portion of the edit was quoted material, which is permitted under copyright policy if not too long, but it was my assessment that the edit included too much material other than simply the quote. Happy to discuss.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The reversion of several edits reversed a lot of work, much of which, presumably, was not connected to the copyvio. Better would have been to have explicitly identified the text of concern. In any case, I have restored the edits in multiple chunks to allow more selective reversion, but have also made changes to fix what seemed to be the problem. PRRfan (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello PRRfan!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, PRRfan. Thank you for your work on Minton Cronkhite. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

you should

you should read the mos:jargon #### face and it said Do not change to "allision," see MOS:JARGON_ SO NEXT TIME LISTEN!2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My dear anonymous editor, kindly take your concerns to the article's Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I HAVE AND NO ONE CARES AND ARE YOU NOT LOOKING OR WHAT? JEAUS CHRIST 2604:3D09:A984:F000:5806:B586:1ABC:3DE8 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

or at least we should ad a too technical box 2604:3D09:A984:F000:5806:B586:1ABC:3DE8 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are expected to use a moderate tone in discussions. If you're not getting the results you like, perhaps you are not conducting your discussion in a manner that will build consensus around your point of view. May I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? PRRfan (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

REFPUNC

please see special:diff/1235603580 and WP:REFPUNC. Thank you. --Jeremyb (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Powhatan Arrow

Can you please assist with the Powhatan Arrow page that I've copy-edited recently? Trainsfan13 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thank you, PRRfan, for your work on the Springfield, Ohio page, and for being open to feedback. Kudos --Chimino (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ooo, a barnstar! Thanks! PRRfan (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting 2024 CrowdStrike Incident

Why? It was good to me. Makerofepic (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

See new edit summary; kindly take your proposed text to the article's Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Operation Earnest Will and Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen

Hello PRRfan. Thanks for the thanks on Operation Earnest Will. Would you be interested to help tag-team my effort to get the Rear Adm Harold Bernsen wiki page up and running over the next several days? Stickhandler (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure; thanks for asking. PRRfan (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Great news! Thanks for your positive reply PRRfan. I think I can do the initial skeleton from the top 10 hits on google and put them on User:Stickhandler/Sandbox/Bernsen. Would you care to query the Reagan and Bush presidential archives for mention of him, do a google on "Bush Bernsen" and "Reagan Bernsen", and pick through his USNI Oral history? I think he might be Bush's scarecrow for Schwarzkopf and I'd like to orient the article that way. Stickhandler (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe you could secure the copyleft status of his service photograph, and move it to wikimedia. We could then have at least one image for our bio. Stickhandler (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

also as Commodore in approximately 1985. Stickhandler (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. The photos are easy; their Navy origin puts them in the public domain. As for his oral history, it's not available online or at libraries that I'm particularly near, but I'll keep looking. And I'm not sure what you mean by "Bush's scarecrow for Schwarzkopf" but I'll be interested to find out. PRRfan (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

NYS&W 142 draft

Hi. I don’t know if you’re too busy at the moment, or if your interest and knowledge of Chinese steam locomotives (at least the ones exported to the states) are low, but is it alright if you read the Susquehanna 142 draft that I just finished and submitted? You don’t have to make any changes to it, if you don’t want to. I would just like an opinion on it from an expert editor. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! It's plenty good enough to move out of draft and drop it into Wikipedia. PRRfan (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m pretty pleased with what I was able to write for No. 142.

By the way, if you’d like to read the Susquehanna Reflector articles I’ve used for the page, especially for that driving axle bearing crisis, you can read pdfs of most of the issues for free here. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Great work on 492 squadron USAF

Thank you for your contributions and improvements to my edit at 492nd Fighter Squadron. May I beg some more of your time to explain some detail?

• I used the word briefly to describe (less than) two months of anti-submarine patrols mainly as a kickback against the number of articles I have read where this activity has been elevated to heroic status. These patrols were a hasty response to the events at Pearl Harbor, and much like the RAF at the outbreak of WWII, all kinds of units operating a variety of often inappropriate aircraft were thrown haphazardly at the problem, invariably to little effect. In the American case, these patrols were mostly in home waters, with no risk from enemy aircraft or surface shipping. And in 99.8% of cases, resulted in nothing more than extra hours of very boring flying training. I realise that 'briefly' is a qualitative description, but the dates are still there and I was attempting to avoid undue weight to this minor episode in 492's history (from a time when they were not even "492"). Is it the case that 'briefly' is a word that should never really appear on Wikipedia?
• Further on, you changed "moving" to moved , and "re-equipping" to switched, but I see a very nuanced difference here. Whilst the unit was re-designated on a specific date in August 1943, the other events are not so specifically dated. My original wording was carefully chosen to cover the idea that the changes began in August, and carried on moving forward, which more accurately reflects the reality. But unless you have read the original source(s) you couldn't possibly know that, and maybe my original wording was failing in its purpose anyway. I will gladly hear your advice on this one.
• The 492nd took part in joined the Normandy invasion commencing on 6 June 1944

Be aware; this is one that I am going to take a stand on. "Joined" implies arriving after something has started, as in 'the Americans joined WWII three years after it started'. But the 492nd were flying over Normandy from day one. Secondly, D-day was on 6 June 1944, but the link is to the Normandy invasion which was a much longer affair, commencing on 6 June and lasting two months, three weeks and three days. The original edit before mine had got that wrong, and I added commencing for that specific reason. Sorry!

Please accept my (lengthy) essay above as fair comment. Overall I am hugely grateful for your input, most of which was spot-on. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WendlingCrusader. All good points. I thought "briefly" was unneeded because the sentence gave the two-month timeframe, but I think your point about the assignment's haphazard nature is a good one, so thanks; let's restore it. And I see what you're doing with "moving" vs. "moved", and it's better your way. I do think "switched" is better than "re-equipped", though. Finally, I take your point about "joined" vs "took part in," so let's switch that back as well. I would prefer "began" over the stentorious "commenced," however. Cheers! PRRfan (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Stentorious eh? I see I'm gonna have my work cut out with you! <laughs>.

You are right of course, briefly is strictly unnecessary, but it adds context (if that is the right word), without being overly dramatic. Whereas if I had a pound for every cheap documentary that over-employed the word 'finally', I would be as rich as Bezos.

'Switched' is one I shall reluctantly concede if you must, but I see it in terms of switching jobs, political parties, ideas, something intangible. But since military units are equipped with equipment, re-equipping is surely de rigueur. Another aspect is that a felon might switch vehicles to enable his escape, with an obvious emphasis on the speed of exchange. Whereas you and I do not switch cars, we change our vehicles, or in my case continue to run the same old banger for decades. Have I persuaded you to switch sides yet?

And finally <cough>, returning to the stentorious 'commenced', of course began is so much more concise, except here you have used two words ('that began') to replace commencing, a saving of exactly one letter. But that wasn't your main thrust, was it? Commence is the more formal version, to be used when describing events, but not if it's just the family barbecue. Begin is the less formal equivalent, as in am I beginning to annoy you yet? Then again, I can hear myself stating that World War I began in 1914. Asking myself why that works, I can only come up with the idea that WWI as an event was somewhat random, whereas the Normandy Landings were very much to a schedule, akin to a formal event. But in truth I'm guessing, and I don't propose to go to war on these details.

I see you have already re-hashed the edits, mostly to my satisfaction, and found some more too. Maybe it's best if I leave it there? Between us I think we've done a fair job.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)