User talk:UberCryxic/Archive 2

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Project notice banners

Great work on adding the French task force tag everywhere! If it's not too much trouble, might you be able to roll any of the old task force banners (like {{WPMILHIST Napoleonic Era task force}}) that you find into the new format as well? Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

France in the American Revolutionary War

I have begun the translation of the sections in French, hopefully, it won't sound too weird (I'm not terribly good at translating from french to english, and the french text is written in a present narrative tense, I'm trying to match the rest of the article in the past sense). There's a few inconsistencies in the french source, which might find their way within the english translation. Please keep the grayed french source for a little while in the body of the article as I'll probably want to try and improve the translation. Equendil 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

French Navy

Balance is needed in articles. Don't revert, please, without adding to the balance.

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you might be able to do some stylistic copyediting on Italian War of 1521? There's a number of objections on the FAC calling for an outside copyedit on the basis of the prose being too thick; and there are, unfortunately, relatively few good writers (with an understanding of what a military history article should look like) that I can turn to.

My apologies for imposing on you; feel free to tell me to bugger off if you've got better things to do. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course; whenever you have the time. It's only a day into the FAC, so there's absolutely no rush as far as I can see. Thanks a lot! Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Marvelous work; thank you very much for you help! Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Lebrun

I'm struggling to see why President Albert Lebrun would be part of the WP:MILHIST project. Or Charles Martel, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, Edmond Michelet, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord and so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Edmond Michelet wasn't defence minister to the best of my knowledge. But that doesn't really answer my question. The articles in question aren't (or haven't been, and being cynical, never will be) supported by WP:MILHIST, defenceministeriality being only a very small part of most of them. It just seems odd and (perhaps) rather pointless. Something else just occurred to me: you aren't doing this manually are you ? You could get a bot to do it, based on categories, or sign up for WP:AWB and use that. Thanks anyway and good luck ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations

Thanks! (And it was in no small part thanks to your copyediting that it was successful!) Kirill Lokshin 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :NikoSilver: 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a favor

Hi UberCryxic,

I noticed that you're quite skilled in English and that you helped Kirill to copyedit his recent FAC. I'm in the same case as he is: the article Vasilevsky is on FAC right now and some style problems were reported, something I can't exactly fix (an external eye and a good English are required :)

Could you please spare some minutes and have a look at it? :)

Thanks in advance, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First French Empire

I hope I'm not being a problem for you here, but at First French Empire, I think you didn't get things quite right with your last edit. (Among other things, you reverted from cite.php to an older style of citation that is harder to maintain.) Since you say "do NOT revert" and you clearly usually know what you are doing, I hesitated, but I'm pretty sure what I did was correct. Please do check it, though. I'm not meaning to blindside you. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Hey, for what it's worth, thanks for your productive comments (as opposed to some other's) and your support in this crazy 'list' debate. I am going to leave it as it was. I don't deserve harrassment for this contribution! :NikoSilver: 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, might I be able to convince you to put yourself forward? :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request

It would crash and burn in short order if you were to take it to FAC right now, I think. The main problems:

• Lack of concrete information about what the Center does. The "Female genital cutting" section only mentions that the Center considers it a violation of human rights (well, yeah...); the "Trafficking of women" section doesn't even mention the Center. Where the information is present, it's either very non-specific (e.g. "Tahirih employees have given presentations throughout the United States to publicize various issues") or not enough to establish why the organization is notable (e.g. "In 2003, Tahirih raised over $12,000 USD through WLN fundraising events and membership drives").
• The article seems to be sourced primarily from the organization itself, which isn't necessarily the best or most neutral source. I don't know to what extent this could be fixed simply by increasing the "Criticism and response" section.

It's not a bad start, but it really needs more work. Kirill Lokshin 13:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine, actually; it's more content-related weaknesses than prose ones at this point. Kirill Lokshin 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Remind me then! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat better, but there are still issues with very vague statements (e.g. "its pioneering work in gender-based asylum law", "works within the legal confines established by the United States Congress to ensure the safety of women and girls trafficked to the United States", and so forth) that don't really tell the reader what the organization is doing. Is there more information on its activities available that you could use here?

The article also needs lots more footnotes, though; entire sections are basically uncited at this point. (You should probably trim the "See also" section as well; I think everything there is already linked from the article, no?) Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, more recent FAs tend to run closer to 2–3 footnotes per KB ;-)

But fair enough; I can go through and mark the things that I think need to be cited. Would you prefer a list here, or should I just add {{fact}} tags in your sandbox? Kirill Lokshin 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of {{fact}} tags. Hopefully I didn't miss anything obvious. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some general reminders on the talk page for the time being. I'll try to keep an eye on the article and step in if things get particularly out of hand; but this topic is rather far outside my area of expertise, so I'll probably be flailing about wildly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine; you're probably at the point where someone like myself can't really offer more help, and you need instead to get opinions of people with more experience with these topics (and with writing more politically-oriented articles). Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahirih Justice Center

I'll take a good read over the next couple days, and try to document/fix the places where I think the article could be improved. You've put a lot of great work into the article so far, and I congratulate you for that. -- Jeff3000 04:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started looking at the article as you can see. It's well written and generally well-organized. I think the main problems with the text are the lack of references for very specific statements; also the fact that most of the references are from the TJC itself, is a weakness. Trying to find third-party references for some of the statements (at least) will strengthen the article greatly. The other weakness is that the article describes some things that are generally not related to TCJ itself in too much detail. For example, by glancing in the "Issues" section, the different topics (such as domestic violence) are described in a lot of detail, but those specific article are there to describe them (thus a link should be just fine). Instead the sections should be about how TCJ deals with the issues, how TCJ tries to affect government policies, what TCJ thinks about government policies relating to the topic, and not what the issues are or what government policies exist. I don't think I've explained myself well, so if you have a question, please ask. I'll continue looking through the article tomorrow. Regards -- Jeff3000 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, is the use of {{note}} and {{ref}} tags. It would be much more efficient to use <ref> tags. I may go ahead and change it later. -- Jeff3000 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that there are many third-party references, they are mostly for things that don't need to be in the TJC article, like the number of girls facing genital mutilation etc. Most of the references for the TJC comes from itself. Also I see you've removed a couple fact tags, stating that they are not controversial. I don't think that's appropriate. Anything that cites a specific number or a specific goal needs a citation, regardless of it's controversial or not (see WP:V). I think you should find sources for those statements. And a note is only applicable for the end of a sentence, not the end of a paragraph, and thus if the same reference is used to back up multiple things in a paragraph, it should be at the end of multiple sentences. -- Jeff3000 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While older FAs have allowed different methods of citing material, including just at the very end of the whole article, you'll notice that since the new cite.php package has come into use, all new FAs require specific footnotes, and even older FAs are being reviewed (See WP:FARC), and being unlisted. -- Jeff3000 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's even more recent than that. Canada which I got to pass was in May; check out the recent candidates. -- Jeff3000 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim

Hello UberCryxic. I have rewritten the article. It is now much better and clearer and is now also fully sourced. If you the time and/or inclination, I would be interested to see if you think it has improved, is less Anglo-centric, and deserving of FA status. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim

Tahirih Justice Center 2

Ok, it looks good. Thanks for finding all those references. The final thing before FA is the licensing of the images. I see that you uploaded the Tahirih logo and the Munro picture to Wikimedia. I don't think that is appropriate, as I can't find anywhere were they state that the pictures/logo can be used in any manner (Organizations usually don't do that because they can lose their trademark). I would delete them from Wikimedia, upload them in Wikipedia, and use a fair use tag, with appropriate fair use conditions. I can help with the fair use conditions, as I have dealt with a whole bunch of them.

So the best thing to do, is to go to Wikimedia, ask for a speedy delete (it will take a very long time), and in the meantime upload the images again to Wikipedia with another name, and tag with fair use. -- Jeff3000 05:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also check out these things at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2 which I generated by using User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js program. -- Jeff3000 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for a check user. It is common practice in most Wikipedia forums for concensus like AFD, RFA to discount votes from people who have made little or no contribution to Wikipedia. To ask for votes from non-WP friends and people associated with the organisation (who are especailly biased) is really not a good idea. --Peta 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is a facility only accessible to some users which can check the IP that registered accounts use.--Peta 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to assume good faith when it is apparent that you attempted to unduely influence consensus by asking people with no concept of wikipedias policy or featured article criteria to participate in a concensus building activity. Comment out the section on the FAC page, but don't remove it.--Peta 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use <!-- stuff here -->.--Peta 02:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything below the line.--Peta 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Women's centres

Hi, sorry, hope your paragraph separation wasn't ruined in the edit conflict. I abbreviated to U.S., which is standard. I thought that was better than spelling it out everywhere. You might consider minimising the links to low-value destinations, such as "Europe". Tony 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue water navy

I am fine and how are you?

Spain can be added in Potential blue water navy section because they are building a second carrier and commissioned ships with the U.S made Aegis system, plans to add 4 new submarines (even though this is not enough) and wish to become a blue water navy.(May be by 2020)

I did not question the French navy being a blue water navy. It's know to everyone that France has the capability to project power worldwide if they wish to do it. With nuclear powered submarines that carry nuclear tipped missiles no one will unnecessarily mess with the French navy. The French has got a strong aircraft carrier that can be compared to the one of the U.S Navy and also that operated the high tech fighters like Rafale. I had only mentioned that the French navies ships are depleting in numbers even though the technological superiority exists.

Chanakyathegreat 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K then let the changes you made be as it is (Regarding the Spanish navy). Until there is clear evidence of the navy being a blue water navy in a very short period of time or it has got the capability but not announced yet or it is a blue water navy but there is all round capability we will put that in the potential thread. So South-Korea also need to be removed and put in the Brown water navy section because it is a long way for them to go. Any opinion. Chanakyathegreat 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K Chanakyathegreat 08:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Taunts

Not very nice. Please don't give into the urge to make things any more personal than they already are; it's not likely to be productive, in my experience, and will only inflame the dispute. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

Do not call my well indended edits vandalism or I will report you. Rex 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Charles_dcarrier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles_dcarrier.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC of Battle of Moscow

Hi UberCryxic,

Just so you know, all major hard facts are actually from Glantz's book and from encyclopedias, memoirs only complete them. And it is always nice to have information from first hands (such as from Guderian who was by all means a first-hand participant in this battle, and whose memoirs contain an amazingly accurate day-to-day account of the battle.--Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Borodino (because i'm not sure I should continue our discussion there)

Personally I agree that this battle has been somewhat mytholigized in Russian History. Notice I tried to distance myself from fiction - 2 of my 3 arguments deal with objective facts. The Other argument just is the difference of a 'withdrawal' retreat and a 'rout' retreat, which i would argue is quite significant in military matters.

As for the amount of historians who agree with any point of view, i would argue that quantity doesn't prove truth. One could argue Russian historians have often been regarded with contempt in the West even when their work was valid, simply because of British Russophobia in the 19th century, followed by Anti-Russian Sentiment during the Cold War. I then ask you this - since we now have the ability to scrounge the iternet and libraries for countless sources on almost any topic, should an encyclopedia only record consensus and common opinion, or should it try to comine all the views to arrive at as much an objective truth as possible? Salute =] Yarilo2 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

This has been debated to death on the talk page, and consensus was agreed that nick names etc would be mentioned lower in the article, not in the lead. Please do not enter into an edit war and abide by consensus, or start another discussion on the talk page first. Many thanks -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see at least one obvious problem: is the source of such authority that the statement can be presented as sourced fact (as opposed to a sourced opinion: "According to Foo, Bar is the greatest..."). Given the nature of the topic, I doubt such assertions are entirely uncontroversial; these aren't clear historical facts we're talking about ;-)

In any case, the most productive thing would be to discuss the issue on the article's talk page; given how heavily edited the article is, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue has already been debated to death at some past point. On the other hand, repeated reverting—even if it does not violate the 3RR—is usually quite unproductive, and will just irritate the other editors of the article. Kirill Lokshin 23:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be taking this a bit personally, which is not my intention. It is just that the article has gone through some extreme edit warring in the past and that is why consensus was taken regarding not only the nicknames, but what is and isn't worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraph. Also, as User:Kirill Lokshin has pointed out, the source you quote is very subjective, and does not contain facts. You are an experienced editor but maybe you need to re-read WP:RS. I hope we can come to an amicable resolution about this. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thriller topped the charts for nine months (37 weeks) and remained in Billboard’s album chart for more than two years (122 weeks). Jackson won eight Grammy Awards and seven American Music Awards for Thriller. In 1985, it was proclaimed the Best Selling Album of All Time by the Guinness Book of Records. As of July 2001, Thriller has sold 26 million copies in the U.S., making it the second best-selling album in history behind the Eagles’ Greatest Hits (27 million). Worldwide, Thriller has sold 51 million copies. Beyond the numbers, how important was Jackson’s record-shattering feat? As producer Quincy Jones told Time magazine, “Black music had to play second fiddle for a long time, but its spirit is the whole motor of pop. Michael has connected with every soul in the world.”

I eagerly await your comments. Sarah suggested that we should not be making comparisons to Elvis, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra, which I agree with. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is making them, and I would suppose they know more about it than we do.UberCryxic 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These are fine and verifiable, and are already in the article.. The problem comes when emotive and subjective language is used, as in your entry, As a solo artist, his level of fame has been matched only by the likes of Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and Frank Sinatra. This is pure speculation and not backed up by verifiable facts. This is where the problem lies. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts are interesting, but I suppose what's confusing me is the "speculation" label. The people who made this statement presumably know a lot about how musicians are viewed by the musical community. As such it is reliable enough to be included in the article. If you want to just copy the statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page, then I'd be fine with it. Doing it for one sentence does not constitute a copyright violation.UberCryxic 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still opinion not facts -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically what I'm getting at is that when you say "speculate," it's sort of like you're dismissing their views. But their views should be way more important than yours or mine. They are, after all, the people who put Michael Jackson in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why could they not do the same to you, and suggest that your claims that Michael Jackson cannot be compared (or should not be) to these other people are also speculation?UberCryxic 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again I reiterate that it is still their opinion, not a fact, and opinions have no place in an encyclopedia. As we are only going round in circles now, I suggest you get an opinion from another experienced editor, I will then be happy to continue this conversation. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to document truth. We are supposed to make verifiable statements backed up by reliable sources. The statement is verifiable and comes from a very reliable source. I do not want to get philosophical, but in a sense "fact" is a label for a predominantly held view. As regards this topic, it is not necessarily one where you can have hard facts, particularly with issues about how people view him.UberCryxic 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you think wikipedia isn't supposed to document truth, you are misled. I am now requesting you stop involving me in this conversation until you have got the opinion of an experienced third party editor, when I will be more that happy to continue this conversation. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I never said you had violated 3RR. Regarding that sentence, I looked at your reference and as far as I can tell, it's about James Brown. I did a text find search on the article as it is quite long, but it didn't come up with any Jackson references in thet article. In addition, I am not convinced that sentence should go in the introduction. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, with a slash (and, no, I do not know why the slash is there because I simply copied and pasted the link) at the end of the link it goes to James Brown. [1] as follows:

James Brown

James Brown has had more honorifics attached to his name than any other performer in music history. He has variously been tagged "Soul Brother Number One," "the Godfather of Soul," "the Hardest Working Man in Show Business," "Mr. Dynamite" and even "the Original Disco Man."

If you want to include that MJ sentence, I strongly advise you to discuss it on the article's talk page. This article has been extremely contentious and it has only calmed down very recently. The introduction, as it currently stands, took months to hammer out. The edit you want to introduce, reads to me, too much like personal opinion to be included in the introduction. Please discuss it on the talk page with the other editors.

Also, you said: "It deserves to be in the lead because it gives readers a good idea of the stature of Michael Jackson as it relates to music." Thats the problem. That's your opinion. We don't need opinion passed as fact in the introduction. If you want to include it in a more appropriate section, I personally wouldn't object (but can't speak for anyone else). Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The link you posted on my talk page does indeed take me straight to the MJ article. I think the slash was the throwing it to James Brown. As I said before, I do not believe a slanted comment like that belongs in the introduction. This will start off another war over balancing the POV of the article. And believe me, that quote is heavily POV whether it's a Hall of Fame quote or not. The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the article. I don't agree with a slanted quote like that going in the introduction. The intro should be as neutral as possible and not slanted in any direction.

In response to your last message: Thanks, I appreciate you taking it to the article's talk page. No, I do not agree to that quote going into the introduction. There are major problems with it, I can tell you that now. If it is to be included, it needs to be included in an appropriate section, not the introduction. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be possible to write a paragraph about his induction into the Hall of Fame and include it in that. That is all I can think of off the top of my head. But, at this point, I suggest waiting to see how the discussion goes. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point I am not disputing your "bounds to include it" somewhere in the article. My present dispute is only over its inclusion in the introduction. That said, if consensus amongst the other editors is to include it in the body of the article, I will not object as long as it is clearly presented as an opinion. It cannot be passed off as fact. I do have concerns that this will spark another POV war. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, [the rest here]..."?

Yes, I think that would be the best way to phrase it. But let's wait and see what everyone else has to say about it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if after a few days there is a consensus to include the quote in the article, I'll help you write a paragraph. Also, I left replied to your discussion with Funky about 3RR over here, but I take it from the discussion below that you may not have seen it. Anyway, thanks for willing to discuss the issues. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems, we can just make it a couple of lines and blend into the text that's already there. I noticed someone suggested a spot where the Hall of Fame is already mentioned. I haven't looked at exaclty where they mean, but it sounded like it might be a good place. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally we would give a straw poll at least a couple of days (sometimes they go on for weeks), but if there are no objections and it looks like most of the regulars have had their say, I'll go ahead and do it sooner. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to MJ, but I noticed your comments over here and I thought I should tell you that Peta spelled with an a like that is actually a girls' name! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Admins can block for less if they want. I recommend 1R only and then turn to discussion on the talk page. Keep well. Tyrenius 01:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Best to be ahead of the game. ;) Tyrenius 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

JC

I'm waiting to see how other people vote. There is no harm in asking some other FAC regulars to read over the article and giving their opinion. I still think that the tone could be improved a bit by substituting the groups name with "the organization" or "the group" in several instances.--Peta 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a similar problem with articles that noone wants to review, even if I change my vote, there probably aren't enough votes there to get it promoted. Ask some more people to read it. --Peta 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Degaullecarrier.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Degaullecarrier.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

John Smith's 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request

You're welcome ^_^ -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Help again

Nope, I think that's it. Did I forget to strike my objections or something? Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First French Empire again

You added {{disputed}} at First French Empire but there is not a word from you on the talk page. What is disputed? - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats to another featured article. Great work :) -- Jeff3000 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

accidental comment removal

hey there, i just wanted to appologize for accidentally removing your comments - I was trying to get rid of the flame that was posted just after yours and accidently reverted to the wrong post. terribly sorry - hope there's no hard feelings. :) :: ehmjay 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian Military History Task Force

Hello, the military history WikiProject is opening up a new task force (no page yet) for Italian military history, which I'm spearheading. You've made some edits on Italian history pages before, and with just one or two more editors we can finally start the project. This project will almost certainly include all Italian history after 476 CE, so if you want to sign up, or have any comments, go to the military history talk page here and we may be able to start working on it. Thank you for any help.-KingPenguin 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Francophobia Disambiguation link repair - You can help!

I cleaned up a Disambiguation link on Francophobia, but my minor edit was erased by your Rv (apparently of an NPOV disagreement). My edit replaced [[Chinese]] with [[China|Chinese]]. I'll wait a couple days in case there are more reverts etc., then fix the link again. Tks! Ling.Nut 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alert

His posting of personal information about you is utterly unacceptable. I've given him a warning, but unfortunately don't have time to do the whole deletion/undeletion process for actually removing all of it right now. Please put in a request at WP:AN/I and somebody will help you. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. He's not an admin, for what it's worth. Just ask, straight out, for the personal information to be removed if you want it to be; it's not at all clear from your comments whether you're actually requesting that. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask for someone at WP:AN/I to come and help out, maybe? Kirill Lokshin 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I'd prefer a second opinion from an admin who hasn't had attacks directed at him before taking any action here; he's attacked me enough that a block from me could be interpreted as being personal. Or, for that matter, just ask some uninvolved admin to come take a look if you don't want to go through the AN/I mess. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your feedback on the Fair Trade article... I´ll make the suggested changes! Quebecois1983 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon

I agree with you and thank you for the help, but Wallie does seem to have strong views of Napoleon. I wouldn't be suprised if he reverts it again. I posted a rather long message on his talksite defending all the edits he reverted. I am also preparing to make a major rewrite of the article. Must also say that I admire your work, especially on Military history of France. I first read it before you started to work on it and was planing to rewrite some section, but my computer began malfuction and I was without a computer for three months and when I could once again access Wikipedia on a regular bases it had all changed. Carl Logan 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you for your kind words. I agree we should co-operate in French Military history (and in other areas). I will try to help in your reworking of the Fifth Coalition article, but I must ask if you also intend to rewrite the sub-articles of the battles. It is problematic if the article of the war is comprehensive but the battle article is a hack work.

At the moment I am focusing my attention on bring up the French Foreign Legion article to at least A-Class. One more thing how do you get does nice arrows in the edit summary. Carl Logan 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I should have figured that out by myself. All battle articles can't be increased to Austerlitz size and quality, but Eggmuhl, Aspern-Essling and Wagram should at least by improved in both quality and length.

About contact issue, I can send you my email address. Carl Logan 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Again UberCryxic. If you have time can you take a look at the Column (formation) article as there is a disput between me and ‎Philip Baird Shearer. I think the two sources I give disprovs what he writes. The sorces are [2] and [3]. Carl Logan 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk:Column (formation) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fifth Coalition

Yes, they would all need to be moved. I think that's the best thing, usually; rarely is there enough material on the diplomacy as separate from the military aspects to make separate articles worthwhile, and these alliances probably don't qualify, given that they existed solely for the duration of a single war. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. The peer review subpage doesn't move automatically when you move the article! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Have qucikly read the article and I think the lead section should be reworked. It should consist of three parts. The first covering the basic facts and the reasons behind it: Austrian wanting revenge, French failures in Spain and a reformed army. The second describing the actual fighting a little more than in present version. The third part dealing with the outcome, basically shortening up the present version. It is too detailed, the precise losses belongs to the aftermath section.

I am a little stressed today but I will read through the article more carefull tomorrow. Carl Logan 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I am fairly certain it should be x companies per battalion, not the other way around. In any case I think the whole sentence should be removed as it is a little to much detail for a article of the war. Carl Logan 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Three things: I think the end date in the campaignbox should be 12 July, World War I, for example, ended with the armistice not with the treaty of Versailles. Which brings on another question: Should the British Walcheren Campaign be included in the campaignbox? I think not, they weren't involved until after the war, it should only be mention in the other theater section.

“New guide for army and unit tactics” sounds strange wouldn’t new instructions, manual or regulations be better.

Also you only write about the technical and organizational reforms. The reforms that lessen the harsh discipline in the Austrian army, improved conditions for the average soldier and attempts to increase the espirt de corps was just as important to make a better fighting force than that at Austerlitz.

Third Servile War (redux)

I've revamped the article substantially based on your input, and that of others, in the various review processes. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appeciate it if you could give the article another once-over and add any further comments you might have on the changes and the article's current state to the peer review. Thank you :) - Vedexent 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure - go for it. I know my limits when it comes to spelling and grammar. I'm not sure what else a "copyedit" entails. - Vedexent 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I only see 1 or 2 where you copyedit has changed the meaning, or sequence of events - and I'll tweak those, but otherwise it looks like a big improvement in style and grammar :) Thank you :) - Vedexent 16:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again :) After re-reading the changes, I don't think there is anything I'd change back. I think your copy edit defiantly reads better as stands. Where the meaning was "changed" was really only you eliminating the "weasel words". Looks good :) Thanks again :) - Vedexent 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront

Alecmconroy has taken it upon himself to countermand your decision and has deleted the content from the first paragraph. What should I do? Thank you, Stick to the Facts 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrath of God FAC

Thanks for your support in the FA review for Operation Wrath of God! I'm jealous you've already got 4 FA's ; ) Joshdboz 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Stormfront. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 23:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Stormfront, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stick to the Facts 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Stormfront RFC

Gave him 24 hours to cool off, as he's over the three-revert mark now. I'm not entirely certain whether his point is wrong, though, since the OR/sourcing question can get pretty hairy when dealing with using the subject of the article as a source. (Fortunately) I haven't been involved in too many of the more elaborate fights on this topic, so I'm not entirely sure what the right answer is here. Might I suggest asking SlimVirgin to take a look at it? She has an enormous amount of experience dealing with more controversial topics and the attendant sourcing concerns. Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just ignore him; handing out stupid warnings isn't really a blockable offense on its own, anyways. He'll go away once he gets bored. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront

okay. I was gonna undo it for you so you didn't go over 3, but got tied up. In any case, thanks for helping out on the RFC. Talk about a complex issue. I didn't think I'd find myself fighting to remove criticism of a neo-nazi website, but, ha! that's the way these things go.

Personally, I can't believe I haven't been able to find a better sources on that website. That would solve all of this nice and easily, and then everyone could be happy-- us, Stick, and the Neonazis.

On a side note after looking over your user page, let me say: a) Napoleon is the greatest military leader in history. b) FOUR featured articles? I'm jealous. C) Mélissa Theuriau is quite pleasant. and D) History and Physics-- now THAT's a cool major set.

--Alecmconroy 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

La Legion

I have tried to remove a link in the French Foreign Legion article: The presentation of the Eurocorps-Foreign legion concept at the European Parliament in June 2003. I don't think it belongs in the legion site, I would like your opinion on the matter. Carl Logan 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Third and final vandalism warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Stormfront, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You have vandalized the same page in the same manner three times. You are unable to refute the validity of the cites. Your only argument for removal is that it is non-NPOV or that it is original research even though it is a statement of fact and has at least 8 citations to support it.

I will reconsider the phrasing of the language and will put it up to correct your vandalism. Stick to the Facts 00:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported for vandalism after receiving a third and final warning. Stick to the Facts 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinijad and anti semitism

very nice comment on the page. I can already tell you what Markovich will say, check me later - he'll simply avoid the discussion and say that it can be acknowledged in the article but not in the category. The category should refer to those absolute facts in his eyes but the sources can be cited in the article. This way he's anti-semitism if of course hidden so to speak....

but i wanted to ask you on your comment there about proving a negative. Why isn't it possible ? I can prove that someone is not dead, right ? I can prove that it's not dark or not day time, and so on. One can easily prove a lot of negative things. I can prove that I'm not taking a shower simply because I'm not wet at that moment and so on, and so on. Proving a negative isn't a fallacy. Amoruso 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well since you requested that we keep it on my talk page, I'll write here. I implied in the talk page that the rules of natural languages and their relation to reality have to be worked out first before we can make truly logical statements. As of now, I think the only logical statements can be made from axiomatic languages. So to me this whole conversation that we're having right now is an exercise in logical fallacy (that is, we're trying to convey meaning with terms that either have no meaning or have debatable meaning, which is practically the same as having no meaning anyway). If you ignore that, however, then one cannot, in fact, prove a negative. The problem with your examples is that they highlight the incorrect part of the logical fallacy. That is, you're putting them in the wrong form. In your first example, the form would be "he is not dead because there is no evidence that he is dead" for proving the negative to apply. In this case, it is a fallacy because even though no one has found any evidence that a certain person is dead, it does not mean that the person is not dead (just means that no one has found any evidence either way). The form that you are talking about, I presume, goes something like "He is not dead because I'm staring at him right now." In this case, however, proving the negative does not apply. The same goes for your other examples: what you're doing here is making an assertion and then not appealing to its contradiction, which is good! You've committed no fallacy. But at the same time proving the negative doesn't apply. Hope that clarifies it.UberCryxic 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand... you're saying there's no problem to prove a negative if I change the definition of proving a negative. Proving a negative in its fallacy sense means saying "because there is no evidence that..." . Amoruso 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Essentially yes. But keep in mind that if you change the definition of proving a negative, you're obviously no longer talking about proving a negative. You're talking about something else. The logical fallacy of proving the negative usually goes in the following form: "x because no evidence of not x." If a statement or proposition does not meet that form, it is not covered by proving the negative.UberCryxic 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I see. The thing is people saying "you can't prove a negative" are sometimes not talking about this fallacy. They're simply saying you can never say "I'm proving that something is NOT". Hence my confusion. Amoruso 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha yeah that's just a matter of them not knowing what the hell they're talking about.UberCryxic 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Verdun

Been tinkering a little on the lead section in the Verdun article and thinking of the image in the box. I think the present map is rather horribly and should be replaced and the only picture I believe would be fitting for the battle is on this website: [4] , I think you know which one I mean. I am a little unsure of the copyright and have little exprience in uploading images. I would appreciate the help. Carl Logan 20:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The charging soldier indeed, I think its one of the most powerful images ever. One more thing, is it just me or is the names of the historical french figures a little long? For example it is Nicolas Sarkozy not Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, but many of the historic figures the complete name is in the heading, for example Claude Louis Hector de Villars, could it not just be Claude de Villars. What do you think? Carl Logan 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. I reinstated the old image in the infobox for the time being. Well lets see what we know about the picture. It was taken during the Battle of Verdun which makes it 90 years old, so when do the copyright of a photo expire? Om stridens grunder (About the basics of combat) by Marco Smedberg uses the picture and give Imperial War Museum as the source. I also know that The Penguin Book of War ISBN 0140233024 has it as the cover. Carl Logan 17:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he wasn't exactly in the safest place on the world, was he? I will do some research about the picture and get back to you. One more thing there seem to be two articles about the same battle: Battle of Lawfeld (1747) and Battle of Lauffeld. I am uncertain which one should be merge with the other. Carl Logan 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, I will correct the links. Carl Logan 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront AfD

Well, everyone can see for themselves now whether or not I'm wrong. The record is wide open.

I've also reported your accouts (all of you listed) for sock/meat puppetry. Stick to the Facts 05:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

sock/meat puppetry

You have been reported for suspected sock/meat puppetry. Stick to the Facts 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read wiki policy you will see that the prohibition on meat/sock puppetry includes recruiting other editors to act in concert. There is direct evidence that you did this in your own talk page. Hopefully the checkuser will determine whether any of the new editor accounts are tied to any of the regular posters. Stick to the Facts 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You never advocated for any edits to lessen the pro-stormfront slant. You made it read like a travel brochure. That record is wide open for all to see for all time. You did talk with alecmconroy is in your talk page and his. I didn't mention this but you also reported me to an admin friend for 3rr violation instead of using the normal process - that is a forum shopping violation. The record speaks for itself and it will always be here. Stick to the Facts 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly point out this RfC that you claim you were responding to? I'd like to check the date on it. It is curious that you never posted to the stormfront website until a few days ago, just after the recruitment post on the stormfront website. I'll also once again point out your proven complicity with alecmconroy - try to argue out of that. It is also curious that within a few short days of each other, many editors, all pro-stormfront, including you, started editing stormfront that had never edited the site before September 11th.

It is also very curious that you never seemed to take any issue with Poison sf's content even though it was frequently uncited, included a link to a donation page, and contained highly non-NPOV statements. Can you point out any instances where you argued against anything he included? I can't think of a single instance of any of you accused sock/meat puppeteers contesting anything - you were clearly acting in concert and anyone can see that. You can't cover up the record here - this isn't the Stormfront forums where anything can vanish without a trace. Stick to the Facts 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. I doubt anyone will buy that. Stick to the Facts 17:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now pointed out in my sock/meat puppet complaint that you first edited the Stormfront article before the RfC. Stick to the Facts 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "That's 5:49 pm, about two hours after Poison put up the article at RFC. This is just an amazingly bad job at lying by Stick. There is a reason Wikipedia keeps records. The 13:49 PM figure for this article is complete bull; you won't find it anywhere in my edit history.UberCryxic 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)"

I like how you actually called him poison, given that I found this: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nbX84k_0hEsJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php. That's a nice touch.  :) Stick to the Facts 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just said I thought it was a nice touch, I didn't say it meant anything. It is pretty strange that you still insist that NOTHING happened when it is abundantly clear that SOMETHING did. The Stormfront thread has several people going back and forth talking about what they did. The fact that you are so adamant that nothing happened in the face of incontrovertible proof is in itself suspicious. Stick to the Facts 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you saw the thread on Stormfront, and yet you insist that there was no collusion? I would think that if you REALLY didn't have anything to do with it you would say "O my gosh, something really did happen! But I didn't have anything to do with it honest!" Instead, you are calling me pathetic and a conspiracy theorist but we have a record of people actually talking about what they did to the site. Too late to take it all back now, sorry. BUSTED Stick to the Facts 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just having a really hard time understanding why you are flaming and insulting me for being a crazy conspiracy theorist when there is no doubt that SOME collusion was definitely going on. The thead has a few different people talking about changes they had made and how to fight off the 'lefty'. And you still insult me and flame me for believing in a conspiracy? I think what has happened here is that you forgot for a second that it is stupid to defend the pack when the pack has been caught red handed. Why would you do that - if you aren't one of their people then why would you try to stick up for them in the face of that kind of evidence? If you really are innocent then belligerently sticking up for the rest, where some of them clearly ARE guilty, looks really bad for you. You dropped the ball - too late for regrets now. Stick to the Facts 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just sock puppets, meat puppets too - remember that. Hmmm now you're singing a different tune - so you're saying I'm NOT a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that something DID happen? Totally different from what you said before. Sorry, you should have thought things through a bit better and realized that there was no way of denying that something in fact did happen. The way that you insult me and insist that nothing happened, and that I'm crazy for thinking so, leaves no doubt in my mind - and probably not in anyone else's either. Stick to the Facts 04:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at the same evidence as I am - the Stormfront recritment page, etc - and you're saying that my suspicion of the four more experienced posters is unwarranted? Even the ones that began editing BEFORE the RfC was entered? Now you're digging yourself in deeper. How do you know they wouldn't do this? You claim that you never had any contact with them before the RfC. So as far as you know they could all be in on the scheme. Clearly there IS a scheme, unless you somehow think the thread on Stormfront was some kind of hoax. So why stick up for people you don't even know when there's so much evidence against them? Hmmmmmm...... Stick to the Facts 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think all those other posters in the SF thread just made up the fact that they were editing the wiki article? I mean if you really believe it was just one person then why were all those different people talking about what they had done?

BUSTED Stick to the Facts 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you tell which two or which four it was? How can you tell it wasn't everyone I've implicated? If you don't know them why cover for them? My guess is you don't want to see your friends who have been editing a long time get their accounts banned. Otherwise what would YOU care? BUSTED Stick to the Facts 04:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, I must point out that you are wasting a lot of energy if you are indeed innocent. On the other hand if the IP of one of those other accounts can be tied to you, or if they think that your chat with Alec was bad enough, or if they think the circumstantial evidence was otherwise bad enough, then whining on my talk page isn't going to do you any good - I'm not withdrawing my request under any circumstances if that's what you had in mind. Stick to the Facts 08:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum shopping is naughty. Tsk tsk. How many admins did you contact? Three? Four? More? What are you so worried about? Stick to the Facts 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Leaving messages on multiple administrators' talk pages to attempt to get a second or third opinion on an administrative decision is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping" and can be blockable. The proper venue for such discussions is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stick to the Facts 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your concerns about "conspirational" things going on (expressed on Stick's talk page: I would rather keep a formal ambiguity in the matter of relationship between the mentioned Stormfront thread and users who participated in it and my identity, although I don't mind other parties coming to their own conclusions. With the sorry state of freedom of speech today I personally would rather not make any potentially legally binding statements, confirming or otherwise. BTW there're numerous other members on Stormfront as well as other internet forums that have user names including "poison" or similar terms. However, I can say that I'm not in direct contact with anybody on that checkuser request list, nor are they my sock puppets. I have minor contacts with another editor of a POV similar to mine, who didn't heavily participate in editing Stormfront's article or consensus building recently, thus I don't see a reason in identifying him. I can also say that of course I can sometimes discuss my activities on Wikipedia in other places. Speaking of that Stormfront thread, I don't understand why there's a fuss about it. Even if somebody prefers to believe that me and similarly named user in that thread are the same person, the thread was started by a user named "mithar", so, even with the aforementioned assumption, there wouldn't be a lot to incriminate to me, except merely commenting. There's no evidence that any bad faith activity was conspired. So this serves little purpose except harassing and creating a bias against me. Also, "conspiracy" is moot, because, unless you believe yourself to be a part of the conspiracy, the consensus building was going according to normal Wikipedia rules without any overhelming activity of new / suspicious accounts. In the end, it seems that the article rewrite went even further than I was ever suggesting in removing Stick' cherry picking and OR, as can be easily verified. So now, probably, at least one admin must be added to conspiracy... either that or it must be concluded that the nothing was demanded in the first place except fair application of Wikipedia policies. I don't have significant problems with the current content, except for that issue with special rules for references... if it's not consistent policy for sites then I dislike the idea and I think that "hidden" references are BS. Poison sf 11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Stormfront users, it's only logical that from a large forum occasionally one or few will visit out of curiosity what the article says about them. This will happen with or without special threads. Many will have no experience and no understanding of key concepts such as neutrality and thus their edits will be unacceptable. In such case, it may be dealt with in a regular way. I've personally reverted one or two unacceptable edits, everybody else who's watching the article can do the same. If Wikipedia can't deal with such minor problem, then pity to it because there're much more formidable threats, such as highly professional and educated (and working full-time) promoters for mainstream political parties and commercial corporations. Poison sf 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors may seek help from admins but there are channels for that. Look at the guidelines about forum shopping again:

Forum shopping

Leaving messages on multiple administrators' talk pages to attempt to get a second or third opinion on an administrative decision is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping" and can be blockable. The proper venue for such discussions is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

The proper forum is given and it is NOT directly to the admins talk page. If you don't like the policy you can lobby to have it changed. But note that as it currently stands the offense can be blockable.

You accuse me of trying to subvert wikipedia - that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm trying to keep the place free of vermin - that's in every legitimate user's best interests. If you are innocent you should be thanking me. If you aren't, I'm not surprised that you're being so hostile. Stick to the Facts 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't want me banned? I read the inflammatory nonsense you wrote about me on various admin's talk pages. You didn't get a very warm reception from any of those attempts, did you? You got be blocked for 24 hours by contacting an admin friend rather than go through the usual channels. That is forum shopping, and I politely asked him to discourage you from trying to avoid the proper procedure in the future and he agreed.

Again - the record is open for all to see. If you've done nothing then you have nothing to worry about. Stick to the Facts 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the one sidestepping the normal process by contacting admins directly. That is against policy. Nothing I have done is against policy (except for the very questionable 3RR block for 24 hours - I've noticed that you like to mention that a lot, except you refer to it is a 'ban' - which is a complete lie.) As for this:

"I think your basic argument to sidestep anything I say goes like this: "If you really don't have anything to be worried about, then don't worry about it." Is that a fair characterization? If not, then say so."

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm telling you. Except I've never sidestepped anything you've said. I've said it to you countless times. You are getting awfully worked up over this considering you claim to be innocent. If someone falsely accused me I'd just shrug and say 'whatever' because I'd know that it would come to nothing.

On a final note, we are not penpals, so I think it is time for our little back and forth to end. I'm not debating this with you because it won't be our decision that matters. And know that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that would ever make me withdraw it, if this is some kind of desperate attempt to get me to do that. Stick to the Facts 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ExplicitImplicity :) I guess this explains your paranoia and EI's fear of losing a week old account lol. Stick to the Facts 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Say 'hi' to explicitimplicity for me.  :) Stick to the Facts 04:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, you're paranoid. Hey, so you never told me - if ExplicitSimplicity doesn't know you and you didn't say hi to him for me, then how does he even know I asked you? *raises eyebrow* LOL Stick to the Facts 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, UberCyrix, you used exactly that bit of Intelligence and Good faith that Stick_to is missing or (as is more likely) is deliberately surpressing. I am checking edit histories. Thanks for pointing that out to Stick_to. He won't listen to me. Does he listen to you? Probably not, as he thinks we are identical. Greetings nonetheless.-- ExpImp^{talk con} 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but I was talking to ExplicitImplicity, not you. Unless of course you really are the same person after all. Stick to the Facts 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Melissa Theuriau Goes Mainstream

File:Melissa Theuriau.JPG

Hi there, I believe your talk page could use a break from paranoid and obsessive Wikipedians, so you may be glad to know Melissa Theuriau has gone mainstream and is now presenting an information magazine on a major french channel: M6 [5].

I can see her on TV twice a month now :)

Keep up your good work on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Technical question

Well, you seem to have figured it out; or were you trying to do something different? I'm not quite sure where you want things positioned. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for my User Page

Oh, thanks a bunch, that's a definitive improvement, I'm going to have to add some content eventually, it's rather lacking right now, but at least it looks less boring now indeed :) Equendil Talk 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Verdun_charge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Verdun_charge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portal

Nope, you can just create it as you please. I would suggest Portal:Military history of France, though, to match the article/category (as you don't need to use the phrase as an adjective here). Kirill Lokshin 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See this. Kirill Lokshin 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. There's still room for improvement, obviously, but it seems to be generally functional at this point. Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on New Portal

Well, what can I say, that's some great work you've done there, Wikipedia is lucky to have editors like you, and I mean it. Now that I'm done stroking your ego, I still have a couple hopefully constructive comments, I'll post them on the discussion page. Again, great work ! Equendil Talk 01:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well nice portal (although I am no expert on the matter), I will work a lot with the Garde du Corps (France), so maybe we can use it as unit of the week next week, what do you think?

On another matter, what do you think of my clean up of Napoleon in popular culture? I have also been thinking of creating a new page on a similar theme: Napoleon in fiction. It would deal with more serious portraits in fiction like Waterloo (film) while popular culture deals with the little less serious like Jack of All Trades (where Napoleon is played by the same guy who played Mini-Me in Austin Power).

Have found more info on the Verdun picture, will post it soon.

Krasnoi

UberCryxic:

Let's arrange to discuss the Battle of Krasnoi via regular email correspondence. You seem like an intelligent person, and for that reason I am 100% convinced that you will agree with my views of Krasnoi once we've had a chance to share sources, evidence, and address each other's questions and critiques.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Kenmore 9/25/06 --kenmore

Main page

Yup, I'll be there, and help with vandalism. Note that 3RR doesn't apply when it's straight vandalism. I'm also worried about vandalism on the Baha'i pages (since they're linked from the lead), and if you could help there, it would be great. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, congratulations on another featured article (Tahirih Justice Center), I'll keep it on my watch list though I'll have too sleep eventually :)

Oh, and not related to this particular entry, but here's a barnstar that you certainly deserve, and was long due. Equendil Talk 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		I, Equendil, award the Epic Barnstar to UberCryxic for his outstanding contributions to military history topics, including multiple featured articles. Equendil Talk 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just wanted to say congratulations on your featured article. I was delighted to see it pop up on my screen just now. I'm sorry that I didn't add to the concensus-- I'm quite the lazy ass. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newcomers

"The real conquests, the ones that leave no regrets, are those wrested from ignorance..." With such Napoleonic motto, you may feel entitled to claim all battles of his Russian campaign as victories, but please don't bite User:Kenmore. He is a newbie. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to France

"Hey, it says seventh largest economy because countries on Wikipedia are measured with their PPP, not nominal GDP. In PPP terms, France is seventh. In nominal terms, France is sixth. But Wikipedia uses PPP when describing the size of a nation's economy (it's just a standard that they adopted...I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is).UberCryxic 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)"

Thats fine, I'll leave it at 7th. It just that nominal GDP was referenced (France comes 6th) whilst the text itself said seventh. The two conflicted and i thought it was easiest to remedy it that way. Thankyou for informing me of the adopted policy (I'm still fairly new).--Mgill 11:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Krasnoi

Hi UberCryxic,

My message was by no means a warning (I'm not an admin and it's not up to me to issue one), but rather a call to calm and coolness, which, by definition, has to be general and issued to all contributors (kind of "abstract" thing) regardless of anything else. I warned Kenmore against personal attacks on his talk page seperately by the way, mildly at first since he's new, but don't worry, if he gets on with PAs I'll make sure it reaches an admin.

Cheers, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Btw, I just noticed your Melissa Theuriau userbox... I think I'm gonna steal that one hehe... :)

Yep, yep. Kenmore's behavior is quite atrocious, but please make sure you don't give into the temptation to respond in kind ;-)

(Hopefully the slew of warnings will at least prod him into assuming a more civil stance in future discussions.) Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonism

Bonaparte is proud of you!

Well, your behaviour was better than Kenmore's, because you chose to concentrate our dispute on content rather than personalities. Yet it was really trying my patience :) If you do believe that Napoleon won all the battles in that disgraceful campaign, it's hardly surpising that you meet people disputing the notion. We all had our childhood heroes, but later in life romantic ideals need to be revised. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not too late for us to discuss content -- destruction of Ozharovsky's regiment can serve as the starting point

If UberCryxic is willing to discuss content with me, then I will publicly retract all of the not-so-nice remarks I made earlier, which I feel were provoked. I will acknowledge that it was all just a misunderstanding.

I am very eager to discuss Krasnoi content, sources, evidence, etc., with anyone. I would be pleased to find that UberCryxic is interested in such a dialogue.

The famous destruction of Ozharovsky's regiment by the Young Guard on the night/morning of Nov. 15th-16th can serve as a starting point (it is combat #2 on the #1 through #10 list I posted on the Krasnoi dicussion board).

I'd be pleased to show UberCryxic my sources, and he can show me his. We can put together a timeline of all events that transpired at Krasnoi between Nov. 15th and 18th, and develop the discussion from there.

kenmore

Let's set the end of the day, Sunday, Oct. 8th as the deadline for you to seriously discuss Krasnoi or withdraw from the article

Uber:

Let’s set the end of the day on Sunday, Oct. 8th, as the deadline for you to respond to the many content, factual and source related issues I’ve raised on the Krasnoi discussion page.

I’ve been waiting two weeks for you to discuss these issues with me seriously...so far, to no avail.

In the meantime, the Krasnoi article is a mess because of the fallacious material you have contributed to it (at the top of the page).

I want to finish the article and you are holding me up.

Again, I stress that your understanding of Krasnoi seems to be extremely superficial, falling far short of the depth and detail that characterize my contribution to the subject.

It is not fair that you should be allowed to spoil the article like this.

By the end of the day Sunday, Oct. 8th, let’s agree that the following will happen:

1. I will delete your erroneous contributions to the Krasnoi article (i.e., everything you’ve written), per mutual agreement between you and I, or…

2. I will ask Kirill to appoint a mediator to review all the content related issues currently on the Krasnoi discussion page to decide what will or will not be allowed in the article.

Kenmore 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Madness Over

Thanks god for the anti vandal bots, they beat me to a good many reverts. Looking forward to your next FA now :) Equendil Talk 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"If I miss that I will castrate myself."

Now, now, I've regretted making such statements in the past :D Equendil Talk 00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Trigg

Thanks for your peer review and I've made the changes you and others suggested -- was going to see if I could take you up on your offer to copyedit it? That would be great! Thanks! --plange 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Your edits were definitely helpful and makes things much clearer, thanks! Glad you mentioned the overwrite as I was thinking I'd done those wrong (was just combining the footnotes)-- no biggie :-) Here goes FAC --plange 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French attack on the Vaudois (1686), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Battle of Agincourt

Did you mean to revert all my changes as well as correcting the casualties figures from the source (I didn't make that change)? I'm assuming you didn't, so I'm going to revert to the previous version, but update the casualties figure with your material.

--145.221.52.69 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move important articles on whim

Dear UberCryxic, while I don't object to your move of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (although you didn't bother to fix double redirects), I believe it would have been helpful to propose the move and to get some feedback on Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. The opinions of fellow wikipedians do matter. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Just in case

Nice! Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic: I have responded to your latest Krasnoi comments

UberCryxic:

My responses to your latest Krasnoi comments are on the Krasnoi discussion page.

I read your comments with great interest. It looks like we are getting closer to agreeing on a timeline of events, even though we disagree on what the overall outcome of the battle represented in terms of who won or lost.

The source of the problem between us, I am convinced, is the confusing and incomplete quality of the description of the Krasnoi affair in various history books.

I picked up a total of 11 books this week on the subject. I had to use all of them simultaneously just to make sense out of what was happening.

I am convinced that David Chandler's book is most misleading, as in his one paragraph long summary of Krasnoi, he seems to be juxtaposing different events and different quotations stemming from different days on the battle. In doing so, Chandler confuses the reader.

For example:

1. The devastating attack by Roguet against Ozharovsky occured on the night of Nov. 15th - 16th, and not on Nov. 17th as Chandler would have us believe.

2. Ozharovsky's troops were just a single regiment or so...the flying advance guard of Kutusov's army, and not the main army itself.

3. When attacked on Nov. 17th, Kutusov did not retreat south of Krasnoi. Rather, Kutusov ordered his left-wing, under Tormasov, to stop the enveloping movement it was making on the road leading west out of Krasnoi. Aside from that, the Russian army remained in its original positions around Krasnoi.

4. Davidov's famous quote regarding the Guard "marching through our Cossacks like a 100 gun battleship cutting through dingies" pertains to a skirmish between the Old Guard and Davidov's Cossacks on Nov. 15th or 16th. From the way Chandler's account reads, one would think that the Guard was cutting through Kutusov's main army during the "decisive" attack on Nov. 17th.

Anyway, I have posted many quotes from my books...I'm interested in reading your responses.

kenmore 9/30/06

Re: Technical question

That's because you don't actually have a separate archive page. If you're rotating articles by hand, you'll need to create Portal:Military history of France/Selected article/Archive (and so forth) and copy old articles there. Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Marshal of France

I have tried to rewrite the Marshal of France article in my Sandbox, would be grateful for your opinion on it and help with copy editing. Carl Logan 18:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That and the structure of the list, what should be included about the individual marshals, some inclusions I am a little unsure about like Jean Victor Moreau and Georges Cadoudal, who are listed under Louis XVIII in the Marshal of France article. Carl Logan 19:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have found it very hard to find information about the Garde du Corps, but I will try to make some edits today. One question: Can I write that the Garde du Corps was the world oldest regiment before it was disbanded, its first company was after all created in 1440, I think there is few regiments that can match that. I am also trying to rewrite the Conde article, have made a start with the lead section. Would be happy if you took a look at it. Carl Logan 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Life Guards claims to be the world's oldest extant regiment, founded in 1521 to protect the great Gustav Vasa against the corrupt, evil and cowardly danes as he started his crusade to drive them from every inch of the sacred swedish soil... excuse me, got a bit carried away there.

Thank you Ubercryxic, I will immediately start working on Musketeers of the Guard for a future unit of the week, with Napoleons Imperial Guard and the French Foreign Legion it is probable the most famous unit in French history. Besides what do you think of the claims of the Swedish Life Guard. I am also very happy at the moment because I have finally succeed in restoring sound on my computer and can only say Thank You for the Music. Carl Logan 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) PS Congratulations on the feature of the Ulm campaign article DS

Military history of Puerto Rico

I think that it is only right that I write to you personally and tell you that I realize that you were right in your observations. I quess I let the Marine part of me respond and I shouldn't have. Improvements are in order and I've already worked on the intro. I will continue to work on the citations. I see that you have done some excelent work in the Pedia and it is people like you who we need. Cheers! Tony the Marine 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User Warning

sorry that was a bug in Vandalproof I apologize Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Krasnoi - I request that you stop changing my words, and discuss content with me on the "discussion" page

UberCryxic:

Stop butchering my contributions to the Krasnoi article...if you have objections to what I've written, please discuss them with me on the "discussion" page.

Yesterday I posted many quotes on the discussion page, and addressed your concerns on a point-by-point basis. I request that you respond to what I've written there so that you and I can hash out our differences regarding content.

Don't change my written words...please keep your contributions to the article at the top, in the space that Grafikim reserved for you to write your version of Krasnoi.

Also, I don't think that our sources/references should be posted together as a group. They should be separate, as I clearly have done far more reading and research on this article than you have.

In the meantime, I eagerly await your response to my points on the discussion page.

kenmore

KRASNOI CONCERNS OF 10/3/06: YOUR MESSAGE TO KIRIL

I saw your message yesterday to Kiril indicating that the Krasnoi battle is going to pot, with two separate versions of the battle juxtaposed together. You suggest also that I am a “newcomer” who “doesn’t know any better.”

I responded to your remarks on Kiril’s page.

UberCryxic: your version of Krasnoi is very much in error. I have been trying to discuss this with you on the Krasnoi discussion page, but apparently to no avail.

Your remark yesterday about Calaincourt supporting your claim that Ozharovsky’s defeated troops were one and the same as those troops Miloradovich used to defeat Eugene has been debunked.

I actually quoted the passage of Calaincourt that you say supports your version of events…the passage clearly says no such thing!

Please answer my latest questions for you on the Krasnoi discussion page…they are content related, and they very clearly establish the fallacy of your views.

Kenmore 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)KENMMORE

10/1/06

My upcoming Berezina River article will be favorable to the French

Cryxic:

I know you like to see pro-French perspectives on 1812…wait until I finish my upcoming Berezina River article. That battle I judge to be (generally) a French victory. I plan to discuss it in detail later on.

I call these battles as I see them…Krasnoi I give to the Russians, Berezina I give to the French.

Kenmore 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Military history of Puerto Rico

O.K. Cryxic, I think the article is now ready for copyediting. Do your thing, you have my blessings. See what you can do with the "Military Installations in Puerto Rico" section. Somebody added that section long after I wrote the article. Once more, thank you for putting up with this jarhead's hot head. Tony the Marine 04:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol! It looks like, between both of us, we can get there. Your changes look great. I was just trying to do the first pass to lighten your work load; either one of us can work on it. How do you want to proceed? You're definitely more knowledgeable, and likely a better copyeditor than I am: if you want to do it all, I'll stop, but if it helps to have me make the first pass, I can do that, too. Whatever is easiest ... let me know. Sandy 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it another pass: feel free to change/revert any of my work when you get back - no ego here, and I know nothing of the history of Puerto Rico, military or otherwise. Sandy 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I pooped out around World War I, and left notes for Tony. Some uneven wiki-linking, I left a lot of inline comments in the text, and some of the sources might be personal websites, need a closer look. Sandy 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ulm Campaign, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Battle of Krasnoi

Some comments here that may be of interest to you. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, you just seem to be a magnet for personal attacks these days. Two distinct issues:

• Content: having skimmed through some of the books listed in the "References", I get the sense that this battle is one where historians haven't come to a consensus on what really happened and what it meant. Certainly, Chandler's version is not one that's universally—or even generally—present in other works. I would suggest that you be flexible in discussing the various narratives presented here.
• Behavior: his latest round of personal attacks is quite unacceptable; I suspect that if you drop a note on WP:AN/I, additional admins will show up shortly to impress that point on him.

Other than that, I'm hoping that Grafikm and Ghirlandajo might be able to cool things down a bit; but I get the sense that a quiet resolution might no longer be possible. :-\ Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (The FAC probably won't be for another week or two, though, as I'll be on a business trip next week, and likely won't have the time to properly deal with one.) Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out to Kenmore that personal attacks are not acceptable in Wikipedia, but it seems that he's uncapable of controling his feelings. Actually, I don't know what to do. A brief block may only radicalize him. My solution: let's talk further... As for Napoleon's invasion, I trust UberCryxic will move it to French invasion of Russia. Nobody else seems to care. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article for Napoleonic Era task force?

This article — Nadezhda Durova — was pointed out to me as missing a WPMILHIST tag. I noted that you are a member of the Napoleonic Era task force — I tagged the article for the task force. Would you mind taking a look at the article? Definitely an interesting subject. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ulm Campaign FA

Très bien! :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Military Strength

Well, the website itself if often cited in Wikipedia, and the author of the article James Dunnigan is a recognized expert in the field - so I think this does satisfy WP:RS even though I agree with you that it is his own POV. And I know that it is complex question to answer and that no answer will be precise in the mathematical sense.

What troubles me though is that it is not easy to find other studies about this issue. When so much money is spent on the military one would have thought that there would be some publicly available academic studies about what bang that money makes. I see you study at the University of Virginia and are interested in things military - could you please ask around about this matter? Dianelos 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What I want is to document that Israel's military is one of the strongest in the world in the Israel article, and not so much to include such a ranking in the encyclopedia. BTW have you seen the article about the recent war in Lebanon here? It's kind of interesting to see history being written in real time. Dianelos 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

Since you participated in a peer review of this article, you might be interested in its current status as a Featured Article Candidate. Thanks,--Paul 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR heads up

Chill out and think about the changes to the liberalism article. Thanks!--Scribner 03:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I like Military History too. How can I get involved in the Military History Project?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs) .

Blue Water navy

The Canadian navy does have some minor blue-water capabilities. It says so on the Canadian navy article. Also, a cousin of mine served in the navy at one point, it is officially described as having blue-water capabilities. It assisted in Enduring Freedom. Lastly, the forces maintain a small base in the Mid East, while helping to mantain several NATO bases in Europe, and the US.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.243.234 (talk • contribs) .

My RFA!

UberCryxic, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

War of the Grand Alliance

Raymond Palmer has completly rewritten the War of the Grand Alliance (Nine Years War) article. I remember you arguing with Rex about it some time ago and thought you might want to take a look at it. Another thing did you get the e-mail I sent. Carl Logan 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI

You may also wish to see the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West african type--Strothra 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)