User talk:Oberiko/2005

Categorization by year?

I'm curious as to your categorizing the U.S. Navy aircraft carriers by year. The Nimitz-class is categorized as 1970-1979, putting PCU George H. W. Bush - which hasn't even been built - into that category.

All other ships' categories are by class and by major war. Recommend that we revert the unique classification of the aircraft carriers to be in line with the other ship classes of the US Navy. Thanks. Jinian 19:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strategic Bombing During World War II

You redirected this page to another nonexistant article. Is there such an article under a different name or typo? I have redirected it to Strategic bombing in the meantime. Rmhermen 14:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was at the time when I made it, must be an error on my part. Thanks for correcting Oberiko 15:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#History -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Narvik and the Norwegian Campaign

Hi Oberiko. Good work on the Norwegian Campaign article. Could I get your advice on a couple of points? I recently extended the article on Narvik significantly to discuss allied operations there. However, since the WWII stuff is now 4/5th of the Narvik article I'm not sure if the detail belongs in Narvik or elsewhere. At the moment, the organization of the articles on the Norwegian Campaign is a bit of a mess, there's Norwegian Campaign and then Norwegian campaign which redirects to Allied Campaign in Norway, there is also a separate Battles of Narvik article. I think that Norwegian campaign should redirect to Norwegian Campaign that Allied Campaign in Norway should be merged with Norwegian Campaign and that an article titled Narvik in WWII or something should be created containing Battles of Narvik as well as the text I wrote in Narvik. Do you think this is a good idea?

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your statement on Operation Wilfred that that operation was designed to provoke a German response. In The Gathering Storm Churchill seems to indicate that the purpose was to stop the iron-ore shipments and prevent the Germans from going around the blockade. The primary-source texts Churchill provides support this. Churchill of course is a biased source so I was wondering if you had a particular source that said the intention of the operation was to provoke a German response. Thanks - GabrielF 21:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Norwegian Campaign Oberiko 23:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Browning 1919A4

You deleted Browning 1919A4, with the message "Already have BAR article". The 1919 is not a Browning Automatic Rifle; rather, it's a larger tripod/fixed-base mounted weapon that is belt-fed. Please be more careful before deleting articles that aren't clearly nonsense, and do a little research to make sure you're making the right call. Thanks. Noel (talk) 01:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

HyperWar

It's nice to see some of the material from HyperWar being used at this site. I see that you added colour to the images. The ironic thing is that the original maps did have colour, but the facsimilie reprint edition those scans were taken from (still Crown copyright 1952 BTW so PD in the UK) has them in greyscale!

At the moment I'm working through Problems of Social Policy by Titmuss, so I don't think any more military maps from the UK military series will be forthcoming for a while. David Newton 12:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Battle categorization

In your re-categorization of World War II articles, you've left out the "Battles" layer of categorization. That means that one can no longer navigate down from Category:Battles to the battles that you've re-categorized. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles for an explanation of how the categorization used to achieve this. I would be grateful if you could put such a layer of categorization back into the hierarchy. Gdr 16:43, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Regia Marina battles category

You removed the articles from this category, put them in the Category:Battle of the Mediterranean, and put this last category in Category:Regia Marina battles; but in this way, under Category:Regia Marina battles are currently present battles that were not foght by Regia Marina. Could you please restore the old categorization? --Panairjdde 06:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The French fleet, right. Sorry about that, I forgot about that one battle. I'll put the categories back in. Oberiko 09:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide

Hi, Oberiko

If you've time to read a small bit of the Talk:Armenian Genocide page, I highly recommend this post by User:THOTH; there are a number of other posts by this user here. — Davenbelle

Howdy Davenbelle

I actually did read the first page of the discussion and saw that post. I simply do not agree with it and do not find the current displayed version to be as such. Oberiko 08:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not going to argue with you about either of those two versions; I just wanted to bring User:THOTH's posts to your attention as the most eloquent posts I've read there. NB: including the archives, the talk is well over a megabyte. If you take a glance at my talk page you'll soon realize that I am quite opposed to Cc's POV and conduct. FYI, I'm going to remove the mediation heading you added -- you're not on the WP:MC and self-styled mediators (User:Coolcat) are a sensitive subject in this discussion; no offense intended. — Davenbelle 09:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

None taken, that was actually my mistake. I misinterpreted the mediation page for being open to anyone who is neutral and uninvolved. My apologies about that. Oberiko 09:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have new voices. FYI, this is going to ArbCom. — Davenbelle 09:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

You reverted a page I edited, in which I deleted the phrase, "not usually very accurately," and annotated the movies cited.

"Not usually very accurately," aside from being stylistically awkward, violates Wikipedia's Neutral point of view and/or Cite your sources policies. "Not usually very accurately" is your opinion. Wikepedia prohibits opinion. (The annotations accurately state the consensus about the movies cited.)

Furthermore, you violate Wiki etiquette by nullifying my edit without informing me of your reasons. I do not wish to engage in an Edit war.

Remember, Wikipedia is for all of us. No one "owns" an article.

My revisions improved the article. Please restore them. -- J M Rice 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cite my sources? Your sources? All you did was delete all the descriptions of the movies listed and place that one sentance, without any backup. If you want to list some sources to validate your claim (ie. according to... these movies are not very accurate) then go ahead. Otherwise it was your opinion that I had removed. Oberiko 20:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misread my message. I'm not the one who deleted the descriptions, I'm the one who ADDED them and DELETED the offending sentence. According to the History, it was your revert which deleted the descriptions and restored "Not usually very accurately". It looks like we actually agree about the content, so I've restored my edits to the current page, which includes one more movie title, to which I've also added a description. I've also moved the list and placed it under a new heading, to help the "Aftermath" section's narrative flow. J M Rice 21:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Message for Oberiko

Oberiko: I have been re-reviewing my position on the template. Specifically I have tried to re-evaluate it being as objective as possible about it, as if I had not been involved and was coming at the issue again. I have come to certain conclusions:

• That it would reasonable to have a foreign tank section due to: a) there commonness in WWII vehicles websites B) there are many less important vehicles on the template c) a select group of foreign vehicles including the 35/38 and 34 were used heavily.
• On the other hand a) website tend to give higher priority to the 35/38 b) there foreign status is already marked by (t) c) no other foreign vehicle quite the same level and kind of use.

In short, on a different day of the week, I could have found myself arguing your position. Furthermore, you have worked very tirelessly on many articles, and, while I admit I don't approve of all your actions, I think that I could not have done much better in your shoes in dealing with the situation. More importantly, I don't think the amount of time wasted is worth the value compared to what you might be able to accomplish otherwise, especially when it is case where I do not believe in either side whole heartedly. So as a result of all these considerations, I withdraw my support for the foreign vehicles section template and related comments and the other formatting issue. In other words, I switch to your side of the dispute for the reasons I listed above. Hopefully this will allow you to get back to doing things you enjoy more and end the wasting of time on this. Starfury 21:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Starfury. I have also noted much of the work you have done on your articles and would like to have this incident placed behind us. Oberiko

rollbacks

Thanks for rolling back the page for me. I still cannot figure out how to do this myself. I see no links called "rollback". Perhaps I am missing something fundamental about how all of this works. Is there some other page where discussions such as this should take place? Hilmar 01:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion worked, thanks. Hilmar 02:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tank pic

Hey, I have uploaded a pic of a tank at Image:AmericanTank.jpg. Since you are big into WWII and military stuff, I thought I'd see if you knew what type it was. I think it may be an M60 Patton, but I'm not certain. I also have a great closeup of the tracks and running gear, but I'll wait until I ID this before I do anything with that. Anyway, think it's of use? That building in the background is kinda distracting. Thank you for your time. --DanielCD 21:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

change to Campaignbox_Axis-Soviet_War

Hi Oberiko,

You seem to have reverted my change to Template:Campaignbox_Axis-Soviet_War from earlier today, sorry I should have asked before changing it really, but I still feel that this is a useful addition. Could you please explain why you reverted the change? From where I stand I feel that if you mention Operation Uranus you must surely mention Operation Mars, though it's not as well known and was a major defeat for the russians and involved a huge amount materiel and soldiers on both sides, it's apparent that this was a major operation for the USSR on the eastern front and could be seen as a sister operation to Uranus as it occured within 5 days from the start of Uranus. The tempate also mentions such battles as Battle_of_Velikiye_Luki which appears to be an event significantly smaller than Mars.

Thanks --Pluke 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Pluke. Operation Mars is already in the template; it's under a different name though. Oberiko 23:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes you're absolutely correct, should have picked that one up. Just one question, are we trying to stick the events in chronological order if so Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (codenamed Operation Mars) comes before Operation Saturn, which was started in December, and after Operation Uranus. thanks again --Pluke 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Weblog sites

Hi Oberiko!

Thanks for correcting my page; you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia, and I just joined a couple of weeks ago. However, I'm a bit curious whether the page should have been moved from the Websites supercategory to Weblogs.

The Weblog sites category provides blogging services; they do not integrate actual blogs. Lumping Weblog sites (which should, in retrospect, be Weblog services) into Weblogs would be like subcategorizing Famous libraries into the Books category, unless I'm mistaken. Of course they should be related, but I don't think they're categories of one another.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything; I'm just trying to get a better sense of how Wikipedia is organized.

Thank you very much for your help!

Jeff Bowman 17:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I've just come accross your request for a third opinion at Template_talk:WWIIGermanAFVs, however the dispute you mention about foreign vehicles isn't obviously present on that page. If this has been resolved, could you remove it from WP:3O or if it hasn't please could you point me to where it is acually taking place. Thryduulf 12:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, forgot to take that down. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Oberiko 00:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Eastern Front (World War II)

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Renaming. Gdr 23:03, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Aggregate series

Why did you delete these redirects? Were they listed on Redirects for Deletion? Redirects such as these are not speedy deletion candidates and must be approved prior to deletion. Deleting pages out of process is a major violation of the admin rules. If you did not follow procedure please undelete the pages as soon as possible. I'm also assuming you did not archive the history of each page. Please remember the history of any merged content must be preserved or else we are in violation of the GFDL. - SimonP 16:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. I am right now spending quite a bit of time undeleting all of those pages, making them proper redirects, and checking the main article to see that all the information was merged in correctly. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

VfDs

I correctly submitted your VfD nominations for both and Sclerosponges and Nathan D. Baxter. When submitting VfD's, please ensure you follow the red link in the VfD template on the article to state your full reasons for nomination thanks. -- Longhair | Talk 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Weapon infoboxes

I'm working on collecting and maybe standardizing the various weapon infoboxes. If you know of any weapon infobox templates, could you please add them to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weaponry#Sample_Tables? Thanks, Carnildo 20:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

reverts

You know, I don't really give a toss either way, but if you're going to say you're reverting changes made by me to an article, go ahead and goddamn well do that. Instead, you're bickering over heading designations: === vs ==. I changed to the former from the latter because I felt the horizontal rules were interfering with the images. Since we hardly have a uniform display of weapons characteristics, I don't see the point in reverting the edit. But, as I said, go ahead and revert at will, keep the supposed uniformity in your little fiefdom. I just wanted the stub changed from weapon- to firearm-. I'll be going through m-z later today, and then clean up the mil- stubs. Some of us are foolish enough to believe that all weapons are necessarily military, but I am not that foolish nor liberal. Revert at will. xoxo, Avriette 12:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Right... all I saw was a conversion from == (standard) to === (non-standard). Typically I try to keep standards in check when I can. My apologies if I missed something or somehow offended you. Glad we could discuss this like adults though. Oberiko 15:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Hi, thanks for trying to keep wikipedia tidy, but please don't put speedy delete tags on magazine editors or professors like Bruce Wayne Hawkins. If you think they are vanity articles, please take them to WP:VFD. Kappa 14:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In addition, for valid speedies, you can use the {{db|reason for deletion goes here}} tag instead of having to use the talk page. Give it a try! Mr Bound 16:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I knew there was one where a reason could be specified but has forgotten it. Oberiko 16:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you blocked the IP 207.200.116.139 for 24 hours. This is an AOL IP, blocking AOL affects many users and it is better to set a short block like 30 minutes, or {{vprotect}} the page that is being vandalised. Thanks. --nixie 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accidental delete

Not a problem, thanks for the heads up. Like they say we all make mistakes, but at least they are usually easy to fix here. Vegaswikian 29 June 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Looks like we were both trying to rollback the vandal on Lee and it screwed up the history. Another one of these obnoxious errors we're getting with the new system. Everyking 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II)

Heads up please take a look at User talk:Oldsoul#Western Front, Battlebox & the Scheldt -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey

Hey Oberiko - since you listed yourself as a participant of WikiProject Aircraft, you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian Supremacy quote

I reverted your removal of the quote from the article, as it seems a quite relavant and informative quote. If you still wish to remove it, please explain further on the Talk:Christian Supremacy page. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 20:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

np. We can always use more people on RC patrol - you might consider joining the irc://irc.freenode.org#en.wikipedia.vandalism channel for discussion purposes... (copied to your talk page) JesseW 20:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Mississauga, Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Mississauga for instructions.--Rmky87 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

M20 Armored Utility Car

I've noticed that you merged M20 Armored Utility Car with M8 Greyhound. While I have no problem with it, my intent when I split it off was that the link to M20 Armored Utility Car in the info box might lead to confusion, especially if the reader was already on the greyhound page. I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case you had any good solutions. Cheers --Aqua 02:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We could add a more direct link to the M20 slot (M8_Greyhound#M20_Armored_Utility_Car) or we could change the M8 link to M8/M20 Armored Car or we could omit the M20 altogether on the template. Oberiko 11:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome:

Welcome to Wikiproject Military History! I hope you enjoy your stay at our fine establishment. Please feel free to contact me or one of our knowledgable members, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), Kirill Lokshin or LordAmeth. I find them more helpful than others... Bye Spawn Man 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Why have you vandalized the Category:Science and Technology of World War II?

Vandal

Hello. When adding categories to an article or category, be sure to only add it to the highest level. Since Category:World War II anti-tank guns is descended from Category:World War II military equipment, you should not add the same parent category to both. Oberiko 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

   In the future, please discuss any large military-related categorization change ideas you have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history before you implement. Oberiko 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 

So since Manhattan Project is part of the Category:Science and Technology of World War II, Manhattan project should go under it. But what if I want see the Manhattan project without going through Category:Science and Technology of World War II? The advantage of categories is that you are not limited to a hierarchical structure. The structure can grow organically, and linkages can be established that would otherwise not be found.

I can see you have worked hard on World War II, but you have interfered with my work. You should not have vandalized Category:Science and Technology of World War II. Now please restore it.