You recently reverted my edit to the above page on the basis that "Derry is the more common name". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles." Alekksandr (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, cheers! Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Alekksandr (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I made are correct. I have read extensively about the EP, and published reviews of four books on it (and I mean in a professional journal, not at amazon.com). Never have I seen it referred to as consisting of two parts, and that's because it didn't. "Officially went into effect" is unnecessary; it didn't unofficially go into effect at a different time. The phrase "returned to federal control" is wrong; the federal government didn't "control" the states. The phrase I substituted, "in rebellion," is from the EP. The date of the EP was not "January 1863"; it was "January 1, 1863." I am going to undo your reversion; please leave it alone.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but please add reliable sources. And next time please add the comment on my talk page not on my user page. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the information being unsourced, it all appears earlier in the entry with sources. We could probably delete the paragraph with no loss, but I'm not going to work on that. In any case, the error-ridden version that I fixed was also unsourced. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits - generally v happy (particularly with recovering the two useful sources I had inadvertently deleted) I restored the organisations own description of their aims, it is attributed to them so users can judge bias accordingly, but they would generally be considered a reliable source for such information about themselves.

All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my only concern is that political science journals who analyze ISW generally tend to characterize it as a group founded by weapons manufacturers whose original purpose was to lobby for the "surge" strategy so that the defense contractors funding it could make more money. ISW is of course going to try to paint itself in the best possible light which is why I think it would be better to rely on secondary sources. There may be secondary sources who also describe ISW as a non-partisan group but I'm not aware of any. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However unarmed bodies, bodies of the elderly and bodies of children would all be acceptable under NPOV. Also-- bodies with bound hands.

All of these are among those in the incident.

In addition, people shot (at close range) in the back of the head or in the back.

And also, an unusually high percentage of people shot from behind.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would be appropriate within the main text, with adequate sourcing, but not as a subheading of that particular image Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted with VolunteerMarek, the comment in my edit summary was aimed at the sillyness in the infobox. Sorry for that, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Winston Sterzel, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not censoring any information, nor am I engaged in disruptive editing. Information on Wikipedia should be backed up by reliable sources, otherwise it should be removed. Please check the sources and my reasoning for each edit. I only removed information that either had dead links as sources or information that was not supported by the source given. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Winston Sterzel 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]