Jump to content

Talk:William Lee Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16 November 2021

[edit]

User:Lightburst regarding these changes you made: [1] which I have reverted, how many times do I have to repeat this? The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006. That is the important date, not 2007 when a presentation ceremony took place. Why are you adding multiple repetitive See Alsos? Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dream Focus as you deleted my comments on your User Page without responding to them: [2], here is another example of Lightburst edit warring the year of the Congressional Gold Medal, care to comment? Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you pinging me and bringing up that nonsense? You are upset I wouldn't continue the pointless argument from the ANI on my talk page with you? They shut it down the same day you started that one since you were wasting everyone's time. Stop beating a dead horse. Concerning this specific issue, the reference says they got the award in 2006 so that's the correct date. Dream Focus 13:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dream Focus I'm "bringing up this nonsense" because you deleted my comments on your Talk Page saying you were ignoring me and asking me not to post there again and then immediately afterwards your friend Lightburst continues with the exact same behavior that I mentioned on your Talk Page. Thank you for confirming that 2006 is the correct date, but Lightburst's new approach is to just delete the year: [3] Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist and Dream Focus:I Follow the RS Awarded 2007, 2007Awarded 2007, AP News "award given by Congress, to the Tuskegee Airmen as a group in 2007", etc. I follow the reliable sources. And the edit warring is not me, LOOK AT THE DATE ON EVERY TA. If I was edit warring they would all be the date I chose. But they are not, because you have edit warred every date to your preferred version. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional Record 2006: "AWARD AUTHORIZED.—The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate shall "make appropriate arrangements for the award, on behalf of the Congress, of a single gold medal of appropriate design in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen, collectively, in recognition of their unique military record, which inspired revolutionary reform in the Armed Forces." Not sure why there is such anger over this date. I followed the research. Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congress.gov says it was Approved April 11, 2006. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum says it was Awarded on March 29, 2007. Did the award become official once approved, or only after they had it physically made and had a ceremony for it? Dream Focus 02:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Congress authorized it 2006, and we say awarded in our articles. It was awarded according to all the RS in 2007. The AP article is best for this. "award given by Congress, to the Tuskegee Airmen as a group in 2007". The point here is that no edit can be made without the Tourist refactoring it to his preference. Additionally the aircraft research is deleted over and over with angry edit summaries and claims of "irrelevant" I am merely trying to present the articles the best way for our readers and I follow the research. I think the aircraft information about the aircraft of the TAs is also valuable to our readers, but the Tourist repeatedly erases it. We are supposed to be able to edit without someone owning the article and being the arbiter of all that can be in the article. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. As far as the aircraft, that should be in the main article for them, not listed in each individual article. Also this article is probably going to be deleted anyway so it doesn't really matter. I just exported it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export so can import it to a wikia/fandom later on. If you want, you could create a new fandom.com for just the Tuskegee Airmen, and just port over everything about them there to keep it safe and expand it with new articles when you feel like it. Those interested in learning about them will find their way there. Some of the fandoms I made get a million views a month. Dream Focus 02:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Good advice about the fandom. I made a sandbox article for them. I will communicate with you about them another time. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lightburst look at List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, what date does it state there for the Tuskegee Airmen? Its April 11, 2006. As with all the CGMs the date of the law is the relevant date. If you disagree with 2006 take it to RFC, or another forum to get consensus but STOP EDITWARRING. It is beyond tiresome how you edit-war for what you want (whether its 2007 or including details of planes someone never flew) and its only when multiple other Users or one of your friends like Dream Focus join the discussion that you eventually back down. I would have posted this on your User page but as you constantly blank what's there rather than archiving discussions its almost impossible for Users to see what you have been doing. Finally show some respect for my username, either use it in full or abbreviate it but "the Tourist" is deliberate incivility. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not require RFC. It requires consensus which means more than just you. But you always win, no matter what the RS says. You realize that they all end with your preferred version right? That means you edit warred and the other person stopped. It is not worth fighting over, and therefore all of the articles say what you decide. Then you say the other guy is edit warring. I avoid you because coming to talk pages to discuss with you goes just like this one did. You cannot even acknowledge that I was following the research and you type in all caps, and accuse me of all manner of nonsense. It is not that I back down because you are right, I back down because you are dangerous - you are proving that by following me and monitoring my talk page, edit warring out references, and taking me to ANI, and I saw that you went to crap on this out of spite. You bully your way through other editors - not just me. And as Snowrise said to you today when you went there to continue your assault on me. You refuse to get the point WP:IDHT. Lightburst (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to follow WP:BRD, you refuse to engage on the Talk Page, you failed in your editwarring complaint against me and now you refuse to RFC an issue of contention. You're not trying to solve issues, you just want things your way and only back down when other Users and your friends tell you you're wrong. If anyone has shown WP:IDHT it's you. Mztourist (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Lee_Hill&oldid=1265224171"