User talk:UberCryxic

Archives Archive 1 (5 February, 2006 - 22 May, 2006) Archive 2 (25 May, 2006 - 23 October, 2006)

Contents 1 FS Charles de Gaulle article 2 Protocol for discussing Krasnoi 3 More Krasnoi stuff 3.1 The Krasnoi article is now generally done 4 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006 5 Unprotection 6 FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier 7 Cretan War 8 Re: Charles de Gaulle 9 Kosovo edit on Albania wiki 10 Fair use rationale for Image:French deployments.jpg 11 Copyedits 12 French Navy 13 Marshall Cavendish 14 EU maps 15 Operation Allied Force 16 Image:2005 tahirih.gif 17 Beslidhja Skaut Albania 18 Hello UberCryxic 19 Image:Rafale fighters.jpg 20 Roman military - peer review request 21 Cicero at the gates 22 "Roman military system" - could you provide input on proposed changes please? 23 Balkan military history task force 24 Barnstar 25 Waterloo 26 Polish-Russian Wars 27 Thanks again 28 Fair use images in user space 29 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006 30 Battle of Austerlitz 31 Feminism 32 Napoleonic Wars 33 Battle of Austerlitz 34 Battle of Amstetten 35 Agn-Dalian 36 Request 37 Bennigsen's lack of judgment at Friedland, 1807 38 Fair use images use 39 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006 40 Roman-Spartan War 41 Hinduism comment 42 Policing addiction 43 Re: Not confused 44 Great power 45 Re: Third Coalition 46 Finally :) 47 Stop messing with my page 48 Taj Mahal RFC 49 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007 50 French 51 Orphaned fair use image (Image:2004 2005 tahirih.gif) 52 WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections 53 Hinduism 54 Location Maps 55 WikiProject Military History elections 56 Michael Jackson 57 Re: Some guidance 58 Michael Jackson picture 59 Reassessment of FFI article 60 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007 61 Montreal 62 Prince and Blanket's names 63 king of pop 64 King of Pop 65 Guess what? 66 Re: Something troubling 67 Front page request for War of the Fifth Coalition 68 Looking for advice on campaign box template edit

[edit] FS Charles de Gaulle article

You haven't violated 3RR yet with your edits (from a quick glance at the edit history), however you're coming close. Please continue discussing the issue rather than simply reverting. Mark83 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read-up on Wikipedia official policies. Also, being more diplomatic will help you. Confrontation on flimsy subject matter = failure. Wikipedia is all about consensus and quality. Just a recommendation. Take it or leave it. I hope that you will become a constructive asset to Wikipedia.

Natobxl 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol for discussing Krasnoi

Uber:

I will continue to discuss Krasnoi with you, but I request that all comments and questions from you be very specific, and that they pertain to any of the numbers #1 through #13 on this map (double click on the map to enlarge it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krasny.JPG

The map carefully lists what happened in chronological order, #1 through #13, and it lists troop strengths, commanders, etc.

Your comments or questions should be left at the bottom of my talk page, and they should include a specific number (i.e., #6, #11, etc.) at the beginning of your comment/question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenmore

Any comments or questions that do not begin with a specific number will not be answered, and will be deleted.

Thanks.

Kenmore 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] More Krasnoi stuff

Thank you for your message tonight.

However, I must admit that your input on this battle has made me realize something I was overlooking: that being the strategic importance of the Guard's staring down the Russians on 11/17.

Ordering the Guard's feint on 11/17 was a brilliant, bold manuever by Napoleon, and it enabled him to withdraw 75% of the combatants that were under his command. He therefore achieved his strategic goal -- to escape -- even if it was not accompanied by an actual defeat of the Russians.

Knowing he was facing Napoleon in person -- a military genius at the helm of Europe's most elite troopers (the Imperial Guard) -- Kutusov dared not send his inexperienced conscripts on an attack on 11/17. On that day, the Guard's vigil consigned the Russians to hiding behind their artillery...not daring to attack in spite of their overwhelming superiority. It is exactly what Napoleon wanted...to play a game of "chicken", and it worked.

Kutusov would not allow his troops to follow the French even as they were retreating from Krasnoi...he was so concerned about Napoleon and the Guard that hours passed before he sent his infantry to occupy the town.

My narrative will be revised to pay more attention to Napoleon's strategic gambit at Krasnoi...it is an extremely important part of the battle.

You can take credit also for getting me to research the Young Guard's devastating attack against Ozharovsky on 11/16. Segur and Davidov write about that episode very colorfully...in rich detail. I am going to elevate its importance in my narrative as well.

As far as a Wikipedia "result" for Krasnoi, we could very well call it "inconclusive" or "mixed". The Russians cleaned up on the non-combatant half of Napoleon's army, but Napoleon outnerved them on 11/17, and they decided to let him escape.

Consider yourself part of the Krasnoi project...I'm eager to hear your input regarding Riehn and other sources.

Kenmore 02:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] The Krasnoi article is now generally done

Uber:

The Battle of Krasnoi article is now basically complete...except for final spelling and grammar checks. The organization of subheadings is complete, and the content is finished.

I will do spell check/grammar edits later this week when I have time. I also plan to footnote more material (don't have time now).

Your criticisms, feedback, etc. are welcome.

You can credit yourself for having gotten me to better appreciate those aspects of Krasnoi that were French successes: such as the Guard's route of Ozharovsky, and Napoleon's strategic success concerning the Guard's feint on Nov. 17th. I would have overlooked that stuff otherwise.

Kenmore 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 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 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

No, you're quite right. I hadn't. Please remember, no edit warring. By the way, I commend you keeping your cool when some others came close to loosing their cool. Mark83 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

Would you mind waiting for a new opinion on the subject? I certainly wouldn't like to say "yes, pay for the article". Also, say you did and you and I were 100% satisfied. However someone could come along tomorrow, click on the cite and be met with a subscription page, how are they going to verify the info? Please just leave the situation as it is and wait for a new opinion. Many thanks, Mark83 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

Can you please copy edit the Cretan War. Seeing as your WP:MILHIST best copy editor. Kyriakos 09:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the bit you suggested as to how the allies won. Can you please check to see if it all right? Kyriakos 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spending your time copy editting it. Kyriakos 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cretan War has failed its A-class review and Kirill advised me to see if you could help me make any improvements to the areas where it has been suggested to improve. (I have put a link to the article here) Kyriakos 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your congrats. Kyriakos 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Charles de Gaulle

Eh, he seems to be limiting it to people who commented on the talk page earlier. I wouldn't be concerned unless he actually starts spamming other editors. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark83&diff=84163824&oldid=84163644). I was happy to try and resolve the dispute, my approach seemed to calm the situation. I don't fell badly treated by anybody involved. Let me know if you have any lingering concerns or if I can help with anything else. Mark83 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo edit on Albania wiki

actually it's not redundant; kosovo is under un administration....serbian sovereignty there is only nominal

I am aware of the situation in Kosovo and I am also aware that Kosovo has a majority of ethnic- Albanians, but isn't this a POV issue when the northeastern border of the country is referred to the province rather than the country itself? Please reply here instead of my Talk page. 210.7.5.4 01:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement as it is, "southern Serbian province of Kosovo to the northeast," both reflects the fact that Kosovo is still (officially and nominally) part of the country of Serbia while acknowledging its unique status.UberCryxic 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:French deployments.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French deployments.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

Thanks for your solid work—I'm surprised you can muster the patience for this stuff after all the crap you've gone through. I see you tackled the later sections as well (I can't bear to look at some of them, let alone try to edit them). Hopefully my narrative will overwrite them sooner rather than later.

Incidentally, and while I hesitate to distract you from The Good Fight™, I'm wondering what you think about this exchange. Am I being unreasonable here? Have I finally lost it? Or are there grounds for concern? Albrecht 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Surrender: Yeah, that's my thinking as well. Even if one were to take Wiki is not paper to bizarre extemes, one would need to demonstrate the need for the article first—clearly, there can be no justification for an article with practically no substantive content beyond its title.

I'm considering changing back a few of your edits to Peninsular War, and I figure I should run it by you first:

1. Reverting "Napoleon secured" to "Napoleon moved to secure"—I think the distinction here is important, because although Boney's actions were intended to consolidate his position in Spain, they had just the opposite effect. In other words, if Napoleon had "secured his gains," there might still be a Bonaparte in Madrid.
2. Reverting "resulting in some 150 slain French soldiers" to "with the loss of some 150 French soldiers slain." The grammar here's a bit tricky; no specific action resulted in these casualties (and certainly not the cavalry charges, which probably saved the French army). Probably more correct simply to mention the loss.
3. Changing "largely successful French armies" to "nigh-invincible," or something like that. The earlier phrasing ("invincible") was admittedly an exaggeration (albeit one shamelessly repeated in most published accounts), but I think "largely successful" is too conservative and kills the dramatic effect— the readers will wonder what the big deal is over a "largely successful" army being defeated at Bailen.

Again, let me know if I've missed something here. Cheers. Albrecht 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indomitable is a good substitute for invincible in this situation Davu.leon 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Navy

Please can you engage in the debate if you wish to make a point. Many people have worthwhile contributions to make to Wikipedia, and your input can be valuable too. However, your current edits to the French Navy article seem to be based on emotives and not fact. Look forward to your input :)--Ordew 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Cavendish

hi, do you have Marshall Cavendish documentary dvds maybe? this is an US collection. you might have some. the battle of france is well documented in there. if you understand French there is a great source of military audio and video at www.ina.fr National Audiovisual Institute. about the US in Arzew father told me he was thankful to the US (you probably knows there are many communist and leftist French who are criticizing them and are antiamerican) because it was thanks to them that we don't speak german. i guess the old man is not so wrong. well time to sleep, 2:45 AM dammit. BTW why are you into French stuff, your nickname sounds like German? Shame On You 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EU maps

Hi Uber, As far as I see the discussion is still ongoing. I doubt consensus would ever be reached and new maps then used. These maps are simply too POV. Best regards, Asterion^talk 17:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Allied Force

Hi UberCryxic, As I get the impression that there is an edit war unfolding, I took the liberty to jump in. I have edited the infobox to quote directly from the NATO press statement. Please note that the Casus Belli implies that "a government [needs] to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort", therefore the non-acceptance of the Rambouillet terms is the casus belli, that what ultimately led to the war unfolding. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hope it will please everyone, if not I will place a Request for Comment to get a second opinion. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2005 tahirih.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:2005 tahirih.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beslidhja Skaut Albania

Beslidhja Skaut Albania has been proposed for renaming (along with other foreign-language Scouting article titles) to bring it into compliance with the spirit of both WikiProject Scouting - Rules Standards, Article names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

The discussion about this is currently taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations#Proposed_article_name_changes. No one involved speaks Albanian. Since you speak Albanian, could you please help out? --evrik ^(talk) 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello UberCryxic

I wonder if you can help med with a image. I have created a article about the French Army Special Forces Brigade and would like to add there badge, but I am not particular good with the whole upload thing. I have found a copy of the badge here: [1] (Brigade des Forces Spéciales Terre) and think it would be ok to use under the same principle as the badge of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment.

Another thing, Davidbober has created a good article about the 13th Foreign Legion Demi-Brigade, maybe a good candidate for unit of the week. Carl Logan 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rafale fighters.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rafale fighters.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Mishatx 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman military - peer review request

Hi, this article is currently pending peer review and I see that you have an interest in military history and have peer-reviewed articles before - if you have time I would greatly appreciate any advice or comments you can give within the peer review structure for improving this article. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cicero at the gates

You might as well expect apples from an elm. Courage! On l'aura! Albrecht 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Roman military system" - could you provide input on proposed changes please?

Hi

I've proposed some changes on the discussion page of "Roman military system" given that its contents are currently a misnomer and do not match the title. Could you comment/vote on whether you approve of the proposed action please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you also please take a look at the same sort of problem on Military history of ancient Rome - I've started a thread on the talk page but basically the article content has nothing to do with the article title. If you were able to add your opinion on the proposed changes I would be grateful. Many Thanks, PocklingtonDan 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkan military history task force

Hey Uber, I have put some suggestions for the organization of the task forde here. If you'd like to comment or add any suggestion please feel free too. Kyriakos 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		Barnstar
		For your contribution to Wikipedia, I Chanakyathegreat award you this Barnstar.

Chanakyathegreat 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waterloo

Do you really think it's doing any good continuing to argue with that anon about the Battle of Waterloo on what is now an archived talk page? Please consider the advantages that would arise from simply ceasing to respond. The issue of who won the Battle of Waterloo has absolutely nothing to do with an article on the French Revolutionary Wars, and continuing this pointless argument is a complete distraction. john k 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How serious are you being? At any rate, I hardly think there's much to be proud of in an interminable, completely off-topic argument with an anon. john k 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Russian Wars

Hi UberCryxic, I noticed you removed the Polish-Russian Wars template from French invasion of Russia (1812). You had mentioned on the talk page that you're not sure it belongs there, and Piotrus responded to your message. Would you mind taking a look at his response? If you're still not convinced, perhaps you could respond as well? Appleseed (Talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

Thanks again for participating in the Ebionites peer review. We incorporated most of your comments. No reply necessary. Ovadyah 05:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in user space

Hello. It might be a good idea to remove Image:Melissa Theuriau.JPG and Image:Michaeljacksonthriller.jpg from User:UberCryxic/Contributions/Boxes, since fair use images should not be used in the user space according to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #9. Thanks. Khatru2 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 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 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Austerlitz

Main Page on the 201st anniversary. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminism

Thanks for reverting all that vandalism - I tagged the perpetrator. I hope you got it all Mgoodyear 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleonic Wars

Dude??!! Did you look at what I altered on the Napoleonic Wars page? I put the name of the portrait and noted that it was painting of him as king of Italy and included the name of the painter. I am not vandalising!! Smooth move. -Sean 12/01/06 if this crap keeps up I'll become a wikipedia detractor - I'm just trying to pretty things up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.181.255.248 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Battle of Austerlitz

Hourra, hourra! On les a! Congrats. Albrecht 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Amstetten

I have completed the article on the Battle of Amstetten. Can you please verify the infromation (esp. numbers) and add additional information to it? I do not have many resources on that specific battle. --Ineffable3000 01:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agn-Dalian

Can you take a look this page, I think it's nonsense and should be speedly delteted. Carl Logan 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Dear UberCryxic,

I am trying to get the Ohio Wesleyan University article to FA status. I was wondering if you might have some time to take a look at it and make some suggestions for improvements (help with editing will be most welcome). WikiprojectOWU 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bennigsen's lack of judgment at Friedland, 1807

I started a discussion on the Battle of Friedland article...specifically about Bennigsen's folly in sending his army across the Alle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Friedland

Kenmore 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Fair use images use

Re [2]: That an image is a logo does not mean it is permitted to be used on templates even though it is copyrighted. The three images in question are all tagged with a tag requiring their use on Wikipedia to be under terms of fair use. As such, they must adhere to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, which proscibes the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. Please do not re-add the images, or any other fair use images, to templates. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 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 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

Hey Uber, I was wondering if you might be able to copy edit this articles. Thanks in advance. Kyriakos 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism comment

I've tried as best as I can manage to answer your comment/question/criticism on the Hinduism-Talk page. Please refer there.--68.173.46.79 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policing addiction

Per user:Will Pittenger edits in your & other pages: Don't you think this policing in wikipedia becomes quite a nuisance? `'mikka 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Look into his edit history. Most recent 1000 edits are "welcome, newcomer" or "don't do it". A professional wikipeace officer looks like. `'mikka 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with mikka on this. user:Will Pittenger's edit summary lectures are demeaning and ridiculous. I haven't even received one. I just see it on others' user talk pages. 70.125.139.128 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they could be demeaning. I am trying to help users out. As noted below, some anti-vandal bots might also look at the edit summary in deciding whether to revert or not. So proving that edit summary makes it more likely that you will not be reverted. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I meet such a bot, I will get it disabled. I understand you are meaning well. Wikipedia has over 1 million accounts. I am scared to imaging is 0.1% of them decides to act like you and start littering pages with friendly warnings. In wikipedia history there already is a sad story of wikipedia:Esperanza, of people who decided that they must help other to be better. `'mikka 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, Uber wor using your page as a billboard :-) But I thought the piece about Esperanza might be interesting to many. `'mikka 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just happened to stroll across your page. I too had recieved a Edit summary warning from Will. He was warned by an administrator to stop doing it as it looks like its a warning coming from an administrator. He has also been advised by several editors to find another way to "kindly" ask editors to consider using the Edit summary. I just want to make clear wikipedia's policy on Edit Summaries. Its is consider proper ediquate to add an edit summary. HOWEVER it is not policy and you do not look like a vandal when doing it. Wikipedia does have history of every page it has and when doing "Polciing of wikipedia" its good to use that as a source too. I am not trying to bash Will, I am just letting you know that it is not a violation to not do edit summaries. Mystify85JEC 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but WP:SIG is a guidline. Most editors want you to follow it. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would at least hope that, before warnings are given, the user is first inspected so that he or she can be identified as someone who might potentially need such a warning. Not to blow my horn, but it doesn't take a perusal of my account to realize that I am a heavily involved Wikipedia contributor, likely to be familiar with Wikipedia's big policies and recommendations, like this one. Or if you have to warn me, certainly don't do it with that ugly template like I'm a robot! Just a quick "hey dude make sure you have edit summaries" will do, since, given my experience, I will know what you are talking about. At the very least, use templates for the inexperienced, not for users like myself.UberCryxic 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Not confused

Maybe, but it must have been a genuine mistake. I have been a regular Wikipedia contributor for a year, so obviously I know to sign my comments.UberCryxic 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about being signing comments. You forgot a summary. If you had kept the previous messages instead of simply deleting those that you don't like, you would know that. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And you forgot to mention which article it concerns. I dont find that UberCryxic is a habitual violator, and your policing without checking the overall user contribution (quite respectful in this case) is robotrolling and wikipedia:Wikilawyering. `'mikka 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have provided a link to the page, but the template doesn't provide a link. Also, no bot is used. Just me and some convenient templates. Actually, the subject might be one of the things that the AntiVandalBot and similar bots look at when fighting spam. Ensuring you have a summary for every edit is the best way to avoid accidental reverts by these bots. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great power

On the article Great power, you changed a caption to

The Charles De Gaulle, flagship of the Marine Nationale and the only nuclear-powered aircraft in the world not operated by the United States Navy.

There's a mistake in your copy, related to your change from the original phrasing ("aircraft carrier"). Of course the Charles de Gaul is not an aircraft... but I'm not sure how to correct this, because I'm not sure how strong your claim is. Is this the only non-US nuclear ship or 'merely' the only non-US nuclear aircraft carrier?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Third Coalition

Done. Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally :)

It is good to see some Albanian contributor other then busy Dori and ethnic extremists from Balkans... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago I got permissions from Robert Elsie to incorporate articles (not books, not images) from his site to Wikipedia. As I don't have enough of time, I am doing that very slowly. So, it would be very good if you would be able to help me in that job. Please, look at my workshop and feel free to work on articles. Look, for example, to the article Muçi Zade for the referencing source. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you are working on those articles, I would appreciate if you would add notices on my workshop page that some job is done (just strike it). The list on the page is not full and you may found more articles on Robert Elsie's site. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop messing with my page

I shall continue to delete those comments until such time that User:MarkThomas restores the official warning I gave him for doing four reverts in less than 24 hours. TharkunColl 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal RFC

I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be welcome. Joopercoopers 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French

Fair enough, but the site you were quoting was untrustworthy (e.g. French invented fiber optics, third largest military, etc.etc.) I would rather use an official source (e.g. UN) as the other sites are unsourced as well, but I'm not prepared to make a big argument about it. Take care Hongshi 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2004 2005 tahirih.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:2004 2005 tahirih.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST 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 February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

I saw your question on Hinduism. As you must have seem in the answers, people have different, entirely personal ways of explaining. Hinduism indeed has thousands of entities called devas, but it is YOU who call them as gods. So you have confused yourself (and most Hindus too), and then you ask if we are polytheists or not. The Orthodox Hindu canon believes in one single supreme God, usually referred to as Ishwar. The devas are either considered to be the mundane manifestations of Ishwar or like angels subservient to Him. Ishwar is not like Zeus (the one corresponding to Zeus would be the King of devas--Indra). He has no shape, size, whatsoever. He is a philosophical concept--or rather a Cosmic Spirit. He is further belived to be the manifestation of the Supreme Reality.Cygnus_hansa 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:41 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

I don't mean to be rude, but we've been through this many times before. I don't mind you raising the quesion, but I only have a limited amount of online time and I don't intend spending it rearguing the same thing over and over ad nauseum every couple of months. Additionally, I fully understand our NPOV policy and I have never suggested that sourced comments asserting the importance or significance of a subject are inherently a violation of policy. However, that type of statement is completely different to editorial comment gushing about "unique excitement," "breathtaking temperament" and "exquisite elegance". I really don't appreciate you lecturing me on policy and would be grateful if you refrain from doing so in the future. Sarah 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the specifics of the google search I did, but it is my opinion that "Wacko Jacko" and "King of Pop" should be in quotation marks because we're looking for those exact phrases, not just pages that have, for example, "king" in one paragraph and "pop" in another and the same for WJ. Currently "WJ" + MJ gets 130K [3], "Whacko Jacko" (a spelling variation I've noticed some people use) +MJ gets 767 [4] and "KOP" + MJ gets 422K [5] I recommend that you write the exact sentence that you want to include, then propose it on the MJ talk page for discussion. Don't write long arguments or your presentations of evidence and make up rules and whatever. Just propose what you want to change and I and others will consider it. If you do this, I promise you that I will seriously consider it but if you're just going to rehash arguing that we've had ad nauseum, I'm really not interested. Sarah 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, Google News brings up 16 news articles for "Wacko Jacko" +MJ [6], "Whacko Jacko" +MJ gets 1 [7] and "King of Pop" + MJ gets 239 [8] Have a look at the WJ hits and you'll see a mix of nationalities: US, Canada, UK and Nigeria. Of the sixteen news articles still on Google News, 11 look like American publications. Sarah 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple messages. You wrote on my talk page about searching for terms in quotation marks, "if you were, then that was being unnecessarily stringent, since most references (casual and news) do not put them in quotes." I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but if you mean that searching in quotes looks for the words which are actually in quotes, that isn't correct. Searching in quotes just makes the search engine search for that exact phrase, rather than a page that just has the words in various places on the page. Something also to consider, searching for "WJ"+ MJ -wikipedia (so we cut out all the Wikipedia mirrors, people who have copied our articles, etc) we get 117,000 hits [9] and "KOP"+ MJ -wikipedia gets 393K hits [10] Sarah 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand. I'm not trying to present "evidence". Not in any way shape or form. I was just discussing something I found when I was looking at google. You seem to be obsessed with numbers...votes, statistics, which term has the most hits, etc. Just because one term gets more hits doesn't discount the other. Whichever way you look at it, both terms gets a lot of hits. But this isn't about numbers and no part of Wikipedia works like that. The only thing on Wikipedia I can think of that works purely on numbers is the board vote. Sarah 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what you exactly you mean by "standard"?
Just to clarify a few things: I am not trying to suggest that the terms are used equally or are as well known or used globally in all countries. I'm just saying that these days, it isn't just a UK press thing, although it may have originated there (btw, I agreed with your article edit to specify that it began in the UK bc it is supported by the source and, therefore, verifiable but I'm really not sure if it is accurate. It seems like something that would be impossible to prove or disprove). A few debates back I searched both terms on Factiva, which is an international media database and I found heaps of articles from numerous countries.
I get the feeling that you think I'm anti-Jacko, but I'm not. I don't hate him, but I'm not a fan of his, although I do have a couple of his albums. This isn't about anti/pro MJ. I am concerned with two things: firstly, that the introduction is well written, NPOV, encyclopedic, and doesn't read like a magazine article; and secondly, if your proposed changes are accepted, that there is a strong and clear consensus. This has been a very contentious issue in the past, and I don't want the article or the editing to devolve back to where it was back then. As I've said, I'm willing to reconsider the issue rethinking my position, but this does have to be a consensus. Sarah 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Some guidance

Eh, that's way outside any subject area that I actually consider myself competent enough in to work with; I can't really comment meaningfully on the specifics here.

Generally, though, polls aren't as effective as more free-form discussion at reaching an outcome that everyone accepts, particularly when there are complicated variations to consider. Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson picture

Thanx, you responded to my request! - Bab from the eo: wp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

And another one on top of Elvis, User:BingRules4Ever.UberCryxic 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Persian Poet Gal was on the line. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment of FFI article

Hello - what is the best way to get a re-assessment of the French Forces of the Interior article? It is rated stub-class, but I have recently added a fair amount of text to it. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W. B. Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the assessment and advice, it is appreciated. W. B. Wilson 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal

I've plunged back into this mess, if you care to say a few words. Albrecht 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince and Blanket's names

What is Prince's full name? Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. or Prince Michael Jackson or Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.? I saw all of those. What's Blanket's full name? Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II? So, Blanket is legally Prince but Prince is not? Kinda confused here.

http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/10148762/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news http://www.michaeljackson.ro/infomj/interviews/an-1997/13 Israell 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's regarding the Michael Jackson article. I'm quite sure his legal first name is Prince. When he was born, back in 1997, it was clearly Prince. Michael named him that after a family member.

Also, I see that King Of Pop has been added to the article. Nice. Queen Of Pop was part of the Madonna article but moved to the Criticism section after a debate. But there was no vote, though. Israell 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] king of pop

I agree what I said was too harsh, but I really don't like it when people like IBTF just 'declare' that they are justified in their ownership issues with the article. I think as a wikipedia, I have a right to refute that, but of course in a more polite manner. thank you for the advice anyhow. --Paaerduag 07:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King of Pop

Come on... ;) King of Pop, well it just sounds better than MJ, for first up. In all the news articles and that, they don't really call him MJ, more likely King of Pop. And it does sound better, cause he's the KING of something. Sure people just say his initials, but SURELY, SURELY the KING OF POP is kind of more important than his initials? I really think so on this one. I really believe this. King of Pop is FAR MORE widespread than MJ. Just check through the talk page and you'll come to all my supporting reasons for KOP. You'll see it's quite widespread. --Paaerduag 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it makes sense... I guess as long as you place more emphasis on King of Pop, like it doesn't necessarily have to come first, but don't just say "MJ or simply King of Pop". I just feel it needs to be appreciated more... it is KING after all. But I'm cool with what you want for now. I understand where you're coming from. --Paaerduag 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guess what?

The French military history department spat out a new one. Albrecht 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Something troubling

Given the active CFD, trying to delete it by fiat will probably produce far more trouble than it's worth. (It's not like it won't be deleted anyways; we can afford to wait a few days here, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front page request for War of the Fifth Coalition

Hi, I saw that some time ago, last September to be precise, you placed a front-page request for War of the Fifth Coalition for 14 October. It has however become a little 'crowded' around that time for specific date requests: I have recently put in a request for HMS Royal Oak (1914) for 13 October. I would have preferred 14 October, since this is the anniversary of her sinking, but clearly your request for that date had preceded this. However, Elonka has left a note there, saying she was ardently hoping for 13 October for Knights Templar, a date which would be the 700th anniversary of the famous coup against the order. Knights Templar has not yet received FA status, though I am told it will be be nominated shortly, and in my opinion looks highly likely to succeed. That article obviously has a very strong claim to 13 October, and it would only be the right thing to do for me to step aside and let it take it. My request is, therefore, would you be willing to consider a different date for War of the Fifth Coalition, say 10 April, the date the Austrian army crossed the Inn and the start of the war? This would free up dates for both me and Elonka. You were of course 'first': your request went in months ago, and if you would prefer not to change your request, I would fully understand, and will step aside for Elonka. Regards, — BillC ^talk 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very noble gesture, and much appreciated. Thanks! — BillC ^talk 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for advice on campaign box template edit

Hello UberCryxic,

I'd like to add the battle of the Colmar Pocket to the Western Front (World War II) campaign box template, but unsure of how to go about it. Is there a proper forum to propose such changes? Thanks for any tips.

Cheers

Thanks for the edit! I was tempted to edit the campaign box template, but wasn't sure if it should be discussed in a forum first.

W. B. Wilson 16:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)