Talk:George S. Patton

message: That he trivialized denazification is not cited. I only found it on History.com https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/patton-questions-necessity-of-germanys-denazification, which is marked as generally unreliable Wikipedia:GUNREL. It can be found in intro, just cntrl+f nazification. Captchacatcher (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denazification 

message: Would someone please add something that explains why the General is known as George S. Patton "Junior", when his grandfather is denoted as George S. Patton I  and his father is listed as George S. Patton II?  I cannot reconcile this anomaly, especially when Patton names his son George S. Patton IV.  Perhaps I missed this, but it is not in the Early Life section, where the Patton lineage is discussed in length. MissMaryMack14 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is in a name? 

message: After editing this article, I seem to have been reverted by some very, very clever people who are so clever they don't think anyone else needs to know any more information about Patton's death. Using such a clever argument about my grammar (ho ho if only you knew who I was really was) - and of course I am being polite - because it's so so important to be polite to these individuals who sign up to do free work on this site for those little badges. That what they have written is preserved.
I therefore demand that my edits are struck through by an admin so no one else can know and thus learn anything from what I wrote. I don't want others to know the location of Patton's crash, the name of the street it happened on, and other historical details. Can this be done? I mean luckily there are so many other professionally written web articles (hence where I got my own info from) others can start from scratch and do their own research. Hence I don't want my edits to be a help to anyone on here so I want my edits struck through and kept from public view.146.90.208.242 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, if content has been added in good faith, it doesn't violate the copyrights of someone else's work, the content is appropriate for the article and supported by reliable sourcing, then demanding it be removed out of spite is not really a sufficiecnt reason. Once you contribute content to Wikipedia, it's not really yours anymore, (you'll find more info on that here and here). If your experience here has left you with a bad taste, it's probably best to just walk away. I'm not suggesting you leave Wikipedia completely, but instead perhaps consider working on a different arricle. (jmho) - wolf 03:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the poster has violated Wiki policy, inviting him to stop working non an article smacks of censorship?  Jokem (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting they take a break from an article that is leading to such ill-will that they are demanding content be censored out spite is just that... a suggestion. And you somehow think it's a bad one? - wolf 06:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

text: OP, since you made this request on 2 July, an unknowable number of editors could have looked back through the history and identified exactly what you have contributed. Then, in case your request is ever acted on, they could have strategically kept a record of your edits, and then, once they've been expunged from the article's history and the article proper, they could just add them back in under their own editorships. So the info is not going to be lost no matter what happens. Best to just walk away. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an admin strike through my edits because I don't want anyone to learn anything from my edits?