User talk:Qowert

The point

In regards to the WW2 edit, I believed it was grammatically-incorrect. Was I wrong? Apologies if so.

Youngjtdyt (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youngjtdyt, you don't need to use a hyphen in unambiguous word combinations, a space is enough. As MOS:HYPHEN states, Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). Oqwert (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I truly appreciate it. Keep up the good work.

Youngjtdyt (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hammer and sickle

The hammer and sickle symbol used in the article comes from the flag of the naval ensign, which is obvious to anyone looking at it; the state flag did not make use of a red hammer and sickle, but the naval ensign did. Therefore, this is the version that should be used; anyone who might have any objection to that is also the one who should make a discussion of it before changing it. This, you see, was the original version used until some users recently started changing the description. Thank you for understanding. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Åttiotrean 226, yes, it is undoubtedly red, I won't question that, but the shape is different to that of the Naval Ensign of the Soviet Union and the image itself cites the state flag of the USSR as the source (From the Flags of the Soviet Union Between 1955-1991, albeit Red instead of Gold), so the edit I reverted constitutes WP:OR. Oqwert (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I missed this piece of information and I only just realised that the shape was different on the naval ensign. My apologies for getting ahead of myself a bit there. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWII page

Do not EVER email me again about anything! Got it? Ledboots19 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ledboots19, emails are sent to you automatically depending on your user settings, I did not send you anything. And drop the threatening tone, got it? Also new sections go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Oqwert (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circle A on Anarchist Symbolism page

I get that the edit submitted yesterday was unsourced but in my opinion something really needs to be added to this section to clarify that the association between the circle and an "O" for "order" is a very recent, some would say revisionist, addition by a single author that is not widely accepted by the anarchist subculture. This symbolism is not universal and in fact, I don't know a single anarchist who has used the symbol in their art or tagging who would agree with the association. If there really needs to be a source, I will write like a paragraph and publish it on the Anarchist Library but I would prefer just putting a disclaimer sentence or something in on this wiki page without having to publish a paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.208.32 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

73.98.208.32, I removed your addition not because I necessarily disagree with it but because per site policies all content on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and you must include sources and proper inline citations with any new additions you wish to make to an article (which the exceptions of obvious claims or on lead sections if the text is already cited in the body). Please also note that original research is disallowed on the site and self-published sources are generally not accepted, so if you cannot find a source that supports your claim it's better not to include it at all. "Not widely accepted" is a vague attribution and is to be avoided without a verifiable source that confirms such claims. You're welcome to add the content again should you find one, though. Oqwert (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]