MoreDarkAges
Welcome!
editHello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Im just a history graduate who reads old tactical magazines.
- But thank you! I'll look at this later! MoreDarkAges (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wow. You really did fix my citations. I must really be rusty. MoreDarkAges (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
edit
Hello, I'm Swatjester. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Battle Dress Uniform that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not continue to cast unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors. Such behavior is considered uncivil and a violation of our no personal attacks policy. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am perfectly okay with both comments being removed. That person is possibly gone, I hope they aren't', but they likely are.
- I wouldn't be wrong to suspect that previous people who wrote and edited the BDU page, would have interest in how their work is being erased.
- The work of so many is being reverted/erased, ect and they don't seem to be around to notice.
- -
- .Military is the Pentagon
- Infantry is also the Pentagon
- Air Force Times, Pentagon
- Quoting the Pentagon and having all information on a webpage being quotes of Pentagon officials, is still the Pentagon.
- This isn't hyperbole.
- -
- There are few to no articles in Infantry about how civilians use BDUs for hiking. What are the odds anything that editor wanted included, would have a source you would find acceptable?
- -
- You and the other guy deleted the work of several, if not dozens of people. You're blocking anything that you two don't approve of.
- How is that collaboration? MoreDarkAges (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the principles of human behavior, as per half a dozen courses on psychology and the required academic sources within, the following is statistically illogical and by the standards of the layman, "hopeless".
- Where exactly would information that is acceptable to be taught or shown in university coursework, and acceptable to the journeyman... Where would this information go, so that it can be acceptable by laypeople?
- Granted, even if you gave a good answer to that question, an honest and ethnical answer... It likely will be "double hopeless".
- As currently, a lot of what comes up on internet searches is Google, and sources so bad that I won't trust them, let alone you trusting them. MoreDarkAges (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't, because none of these points are relevant, nor accurate. And given that I already warned you to stop casting aspersions, and you're once again putting words into my mouth about who I "trust" and what I'm "telling you" that, once again I've never said. This conversation is concluded, as you cannot seem to have a good-faith discussion and we're well into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- If you take a source down, that means you don't trust the source or think it's valid.
- If you leave it up, that means the reverse.
- If you leave up an article by the BBC, but take down an article by the Guardian, and both of them have near identical information, that demonstrates what you think is and isn't credible.
- If you wrote down and told others "this editor person thinks that tags on clothing are valid sources", that wouldn't be an asperation, even if I never said such a thing. The fact I used tags as sources, indicates I think they are valid sources. MoreDarkAges (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Being Misreprented, Heavily
editA tag on clothing is "a reddit post". It would seem that it's not a "tag" and it shouldn't be called a tag by wikipedia editors, which is why it's being called "a reddit post".
Everyone who isn't a university or a state that uploads a video is "Random people on Youtube".
If you leave up 26 sources that are .mil, Infantry, literally "Army" (Yes, that Army) and the like, or are quoting word for word military officials; but you take down and reject dozens of other sources... that isn't "Rejecting sources that aren't the Pentagon".
Noticing that the sources on a wiki page that are left up all have something in common, and saying as much, is "an unfounded asperation" and perhaps something like an insult.
The works of several to dozens of editors over years isn't a "consensus", it's two editors and their sources, i.e "Infantry".
"I'm trying to help you out here, but this is wearing at my patience" is a sign of "patience". Deleting things in seconds and openly saying you won't read something, is also "patience".
-
Linking a very long page on Wikipedia guidance, is saying why sources are rejected and aren't valid. Quoting the Wikipedia guidance isn't.
-
Calling a "tag" a "tag" is misrepresenting a situation. Calling a "tag" a "reddit post" is not misrepresentation of a situation.
I am not being "misrepresented"