User talk:DMorpheus2

This user may have left Wikipedia. DMorpheus2 has not edited Wikipedia since 24 October 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Page restarted, Nov 21 2012

Left a message

On your old DMorpheus talk page about a question you posed a while back. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norm

Are the Morpheus who used to have an interest in the Normandy articles? It's been a while, nice to see you around.Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed.

File:DeedAcademyPark property.tif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DeedAcademyPark property.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christie suspension. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edit makes the section badly misleading. Did you even read how you have left it - three times now. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it clarified it. That section was mixing in info on Christie prototypes of the 1930s with wartime christie-based tanks, and even then with only a few of those tank types. It was a muddle. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment!

Please comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_France#RFC:_Scope_of_.22result.22_included_in_the_infobox

Thanks. KevinNinja (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my edit to "Operation Dragoon"

Bear with me; this is my first attempt to talk with another editor. The motivation for my edit was to eliminate what I felt was redundant information. The first three sentences of the paragraph state "A significant benefit of Operation Dragoon was the use of the port facilities in Southern France, especially the large ports at Marseille and Toulon. After Operation Cobra and Operation Dragoon, the Allied advance slowed almost to a halt in September due to a critical lack of supplies. Dragoon enabled the use of the Southern French ports." The fact that a result of Operation Dragoon was the use of southern French ports is stated twice in three sentences. I sought to correct this and I still think it should be fixed. UConnHusky7 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agreed with your original goal. Your edit, though, left a run-on sentence that, while fixing the initial problem, created a new problem. I went back later and cleaned it up with another edit that, I hope, achieves both of our mutual goals. I am still a little troubled by the article conclusion, which basically endorses the Churchill view that the operation was a waste. That ignores the reality that Marseilles became a hugely important logistics base for the US Army (which is why I am kind of hung up on the port issue). DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad you agree with me, and thanks for your help on my edit. I just deleted the redundant information about the ports. UConnHusky7 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to "Sally Hemings"

I saw your recent edit. Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia.

I could find no more reliable source on this subject than monticello.org - the cited reference.

As currently written, this article's sidebar states as fact that Hemings was the concubine of T. Jefferson. However, the cited reference (monticello.org) specifically reports differing points of view on this subject.

A study commissioned by monticello.org concluded that there is a "high probability" that T. Jefferson fathered one of her children. It concludes that it is only "likely" that he fathered others.

Monticello.org reports that other opinions worthy of consideration disagree entirely and that these historians have concluded that T. Jefferson fathered none of Hemings' children.

In summary, Monticello.org reports no facts on these issues. The source reports only varying degrees of probability.

More specifically, the word "concubine" connotes an ongoing sexual relationship. The reference source indicates that such a relationship (if it can be construed through the contention that T. Jefferson fathered more than one of her children) is only "likely."

Because of the limited space in that sidebar, it is not possible to use multiple words to explain what the cited reference says. I do not think the solution to this limitation ought to be to state as a fact something that the source referenced says is only likely - while the source itself notes that other historians have come to a bona fide and opposite conclusion.

Monticello.org's strongest statement on this subject is that a majority of historians believe T. Jefferson fathered six of Heming's children, with that majority believing it only "likely" that he fathered five of them. Therefore, based on this reference, Wikipedia can report no more than "most historians believe..." - which is what the article now says.

It is not within the purview of Wikipedia contributors to come to a materially different conclusion than that which is made by the supporting reference.

Wikipedia contributors cannot write history based on their own conclusions and opinions but should make available to the public facts and opinions reported by recognized experts who are cited by reference. No interpretation of the facts and conclusions cited by monticello.org support the statement as fact that T. Jefferson held Hemings as a concubine. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources here, not just Monticello.org. For a start, there is the Hemmings' family itself, which had the history right for a couple hundred years before white people would believe it. There is the Gordon-Reed book. There is the demolition of the alternative myth (the Carr story) about the Hemmings children. In almost any other case we'd consider all that good enough. But there is also, quite frankly, a certain amount of racism in the skepticism on this issue. Shall we question the parentage of Martha Wayles Jefferson's children? Why don't we do that? DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't find this post very persuasive. You clearly come to this with a point of view.

For instance, you state here as fact - "there is, also" - that racism plays a role in disagreements with your position. That statement is nothing more than your opinion and, frankly, has no place in such discussions. That statement is taken by me as an insult both to my integrity and my intelligence.

You suggest that we (for some reason that escapes me) perhaps should question the parentage of others. If you have authoritative sources, go ahead and list them in the appropriate article. But, frankly, this kind of tit for tat has no place here or in any serious discussion.

You argue that the authoritative source referenced (using the only DNA studies of which I am aware) is WRONG and other sources, including oral history, are RIGHT.

Here's the bottom line: the "concubine" statement is currently presented as a fact. The reference used in the corresponding statement in the article itself DOES NOT AGREE that it is a fact. You have no choice but to argue successfully that monticello.org is not an authoritative source, because for the "concubine" statement to be presented as fact, monticello.org's position must be dismissed entirely. Monticello.org clearly states that there is no fact on this matter, only a majority opinion. If an authoritative source questions the factual nature of a statement, that statement cannot be presented as a fact. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obviously racist to question the paternity of Sally Hemming's children (about whom a great deal has been said) and simultaneously NOT question the paternity of Martha Wayles Jefferson's children. What exactly makes the Hemmings offspring less likely to be jefferson's (or "jeffersons") than the Wayles Jefferson offspring? DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is irrelevant to the question, which is stating something as fact in the Hemings table when there is clearly a difference of opinion among bona fide sources, and is not in agreement with the most authoritative source. Listed among the pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. I propose that "concubine" be changed to "likely concubine", since that is a truthful characterization. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly raised the question I answered. You alone do not decide which sources are most credible; all editors do that. Part of the nature of racism is that it is often hidden. I am asking you to think about that deeply if you haven't already.

I don't give a damn one way or the other about the word 'concubine', but, there's really very little argument about the paternity of Ms. Hemmings' children. The double standard being applied here in the face of FAR more evidence than one normally sees in these cases is racist, full stop. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your agreement. I will change the language to likely concubine. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't agreement, and you already knew that. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISU 152

Robert Forcyk is a very acclaimed military historian, he doesn't make things up. The ISU-152 and SU-152 were never intended to fight tanks. The nickname: "Зверобой" "Beast Killer", was a pure propaganda invention, and not created because of its rare abililty to blast German tanks into pieces. See Google Books p62: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=rcinCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=Kursk 1943: The Northern Front'&hl=de&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=propaganda invetion&f=false and: http://imgur.com/a/a3wdS

Please stop repeating that old myth and revert yourself. Don't be such an ignorant like the other guy claiming that he had to "remove Wehraboo tears". Guess the circlejerk over at r/SWS (ShityWehrabooSay) already intoxicated his mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.172.27 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to convince me with your insults. Have a nice day. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insulted? No, I asked you to undone your revert and not to follow the same path of the other guy, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.58.46.157) who I called an ignorant and who's apparently coming from r/SWS as he wanted to remove "Wehraboo tears" and vandalise Wikipedia.

You on the other hand, made no explanation why you made the revert, and I'm asking you again to undone your revert. As it is clear that you made a mistake, if you feel insulted, that was not my intention so take my sorry. The fact about the nickname and its origin remains, it is a pure propaganda invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.172.27 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will accept your apology. Now: of course it is soviet propaganda. That has been obvious forever. The name is no different than e.g. the shark-mouth paint on US fighters. But your edit went far beyond that by saying that the name was designed to say the Red Army had a 'solution' to the second-generation German AFVs. You have no source for that. Multiple sources exist for the original content. The word 'propaganda' is a strong word. I am not saying it should not be used here, but I am saying that such a claim needs a source and we should not go beyond that source. DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, step back and read the links above, there is your source. I have linked it. Military historian Robert Forcyk, Kursk 1943: The Northen Front p. 62 states: "the "Zvierboy" nickname was a purley a propaganda invention intended to create the idea that the Red Army had a solution to the Tigers and Ferdinands" The Red Army did indeed had nothing to field against in equal terms, the T-34-84 and Is-2 who could reliable deal with does and also being superior to them, would only see action somewhere in March, April 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.172.27 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I caution you against plagiarizing your source. I have reverted. This is unnecessary nonsense. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Lahren

I completely understand where you're coming from, but such disputed terms—the pro-life/pro-choice political framing in the context of abortion—should be outside Wikipedia. The abortion rights is a precise descriptor, because that movement advocates for the option, not for the use of abortion: "anti-abortion" is also precise, because that movement advocates against abortion, period. Blue sphere 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, while I agree this is obviously a contentious subject and 'words matter' - a lot - this is exactly why usage of her own words is the most cautious way to proceed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to American spelling

Why did you change the article on the IS tank family to American spelling?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was ALREADY using American English for most of the article. Only a few recent additions used British spelling. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IS-2 Operational history

Hi DMorpheus,

I'm on the way to improve the article's section, with hopefully a more balanced view and citations to reliable sources. However, I'm currently limited to access their combat history, as I only have the books "IS-2 Heavy Tank" and "Stalin's Heavy Tanks, 1941-145" by Steven Zaloga at hand. While the books contain a lot of technical documentation, little is actually given to what happened to their combat debut and further history. Do you happen to have some other books which you can recommend? Thanks, regards Dircovic (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary in WW2

Re [1], were they active in the beginning as well? WW2 history is not one of my strongest areas. The EuroNews source at the end of the paragraph and History.com for instance support that sentence. "Non-belligerent" seems to be a common word to describe Hungary in the early stages of the war. Have I misunderstood? --Felcotiya (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They participated in both the Yugoslav and USSR campaigns with major forces. "Non belligerent" is nonsense...they were very belligerent. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Brody

Question for you, why did you remove sourced material about the lack of preparations by the Red Army prior to Barbarossa? The source in question is a documentary published by Russian state television and rereleased by the BBC and qualifies as a reliable source. Eric the fever (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric the fever because Youtube etc are not necessarily RSes and the writing was really unencyclopedic. Spare us, please, from the notion that Red Army tank crews didn't know how to maintain their own tanks. The formal title for a tank driver in the WW2 Red Army was "Driver-mechanic". Every tank crew in the world spends most of their time doing maintenance. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize about the amateurish citation format there, it was one of the first pages I revised about 4 years ago and haven't touched it up since. The citation is from a documentary produced in Russia that draws on russian historical sources for these battle. The documentaries are used on other pages related to the Eastern Front in WW2 and are considered reliable. Eric the fever (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested. EyeTruth (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DMorpheus2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

opinion

my opinion my good sir but you appear to be a liberal douche. don't be. kthxbye O_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.93.217 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need attention :)

Hello! An old dispute that you were involved in has been brought up again. Your opinion is greatly valued. Thank you! KevinNinja (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]