User talk:Oberiko/2007

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Image tagging for Image:Chi-Chi_(Dragon_Ball)_photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chi-Chi_(Dragon_Ball)_photo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vegeta photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vegeta photo.jpg. 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 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of military unit names instead of countries/alliances

As far as the battlebox in Second Battle of El Alamein goes, I wasn't aware of the policy and have changed it back.

However, before I changed First Battle of El Alamein, it read:

The First Battle of El Alamein 1–July 27 1942 was a battle of the Western Desert Campaign of World War II, fought between the [Germany]– [sic] commanded by Erwin Rommel and the British, commanded by Bernard Montgomery.

"Eighth Army" can be justified, but "British" in relation to North Africa is plainly wrong -- and no-one has noticed the other error. (Maybe someone was trying to make it "German-Italian", who knows.) I didn't change the battlebox at all. Regards, Grant | Talk 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Taiyoken.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

China in WWII

I'm not against putting China in the inbox now that I've looked at the stats. Thanks for pointing that out. --LtWinters 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Misuse of minor edit

This was not a minor edit. Please read up on minor edits and avoid this mistake in the future. Haber 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep doing this[1]. It makes it difficult for other contributors to follow the history. Haber 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A history of you constantly changing the info box and myself (or someone else) reverting back? Oberiko 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware Haber, but I'm an administrator here. When I use the "rollback" function, Wikipedia automatically tags it as a minor edit. Please read up on Wikipedia administrators and avoid making this mistake in the future. Oberiko 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the section you just quoted? It seems rollback is meant for vandalism, not for disputed content. Misuse of admin tools seems like something you should know to avoid. Haber 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And not only are you doing this to me, but to others as well.[2] [3] Haber 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I agree with Haber. You shouldn't be using rollback for reverting non-vandal edits. Badgerpatrol 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks man. Haber 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Infobox

Just felt like giving you a little "thank you" note. It's getting really annoying reverting all the edits that put the countries in the info box, isn't it? We voted on this, didn't we? We voted, and the majority said to keep the countries out, correct? Don't see why there's still people who can't follow that... Anyway, thanks. --Plasma Twa 2 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Battleaxe

Hi Oberiko. Yeah, I understood C Squadron was the name of the unit, I just couldn't make out why it's in bold when no other unit name is. Shouldn't it be just
C Squadron or even C Squadron? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:M7priest.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:M7priest.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:World War I equipment

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:World War I equipment, by 84.66.17.239, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:World War I equipment has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:World War I equipment, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:World War I equipment itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guru (dragonball)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Guru (dragonball), by Kbdank71, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Guru (dragonball) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this page is a redirect to a deleted page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Guru (dragonball), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Guru (dragonball) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WWII Infobox

This clearly isn't working. I was wondering, perhaps we should make a talk page primarily to deal with the infobox? ALthough many people want something different and are refusing to change their minds, then I suppose we would eventually have to come up with a vote or something. Do you agree with that proposal? (7 people alone have reverted the infobox in the past 24 hours). --LtWinters 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Battleaxe

Hi. I was interested to see the changes to references you've been making. The <ref name=" "/> feature seems to be automatically inserting page numbers from the name text, which is brilliant. I've not come across this feature before - where can I find it documented? Regards Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Campaign

Hi Oberiko. I see you've been doing a major re-shuffle of the campaign boxes. Has this been discussed anywhere? I've got a problem since in the current mode two of the most important battles, Cassino and Anzio don't appear in the main campaign box but are hidden in the Winter line sub campaign box. This can't be right. There's no rule that says they shouldn't appear in both boxes. Also I think the Italian campaign box should appear in all the battle articles (including the articles on Winter Line battles). I'm not convinced it is appropriate to heve a saparate Winter Line campaign box because the definition of the Winter Line is obscure depending on what source you read. Sometimes it is defined as the Bernhardt plus Gustav east of Cassino, sometimes just Gustav, sometimes Gustav plus Adolf Hitler line, sometimes all three! I propose we reinstate Cassino and Anzio into the Italian Campaign box and have this box in all the Campaign articles. The Winter Line campaign box can stay as it is and be put in the appropriate articles in addition to the Italian Campaign box. What do you think? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this some more, I'd like to do the following:

- Take out all the text from the Winter Line article except the first summary paragraph and integrate it with the Bernhardt Line article (it should be there anyway). Winter Line article becomes a summary, not a battle.
- In the main Italian campaign box remove Winter Line and insert Bernhardt Line, Cassino, and Anzio.
- Add Bernhardt Line to the Winter Line campaignbox
- Make sure Italian campaign box is in all articles on the Italian Campaign and Winter Line Campaignbox in Ortona, San Pietro, Bernhardt, Cassino and maybe Anzio. I don't think Anzio was a Winter Line battle. It suppoted the Winter Line effort but if anything was a Caesar C Line battle.

Regards Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Stephen. I was going by the articles themselves, which stated they were part of the Winter Line. To be honest, I know quite little about the Italian Campaign itself, so I have no problem with the changes you propose, though I myself don't have the knowledge to comment on the accuracy of them.

If, as you say, the Winter Line is just a blurred amalgamation of various other lines, then I would fully agree that the Winter Line article should simply be a page to explain the various definitions, and the more accurate "sub-lines" be used within all of the other articles. I would also recommend removing the Winter Line campaign box entirely, since it couldn't have a universally accepted definition of exactly which actions were taken around it. Oberiko 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. TheGoodSon 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your reversions TheGoodSon, 3RR doesn't work that way. Oberiko 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France in infobox

I see you've re-added France. Can you discuss on the WW2 talk page which "France" you're referring to (3FR, Free French, Provisional) and why they merit being a major power? Oberiko 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I've voted (straw poll) for 5 vs. 3 and when it seemed a compromise might be found for Allies vs Axis. I cannot agree with a 4 vs. 3 or 3 vs. 3 variant and am certain no consensus for that exists on the talk page. As to which France, both the 3rd Republic and what would become the 4th Republic were Major Powers, for simplicity's sake I've left De Gaulle as leader.--Caranorn 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito-Tôjô

Thanks for your support on this matter; your arguments were coherent and well explained.--Flying tiger 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Battleaxe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battleaxe.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis batallion

i'll do my best mate. It may take awhile though.

any more info would help--MKnight9989 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all over the internet but all I'm finding are mere ackowlegements that Oasis units existed. Sorry mate. --MKnight9989 12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tank destroyers

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Tank destroyers, by Sus scrofa (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Tank destroyers fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

superfluous talk page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Tank destroyers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yamcha photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yamcha photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Jay32183 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tenshinhan photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tenshinhan photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Jay32183 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Piccolo (Dragon Ball) photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piccolo (Dragon Ball) photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Jay32183 04:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grenade

A template you created, Template:Grenade, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it was canvassing

It's Miyokan who i told to, it's also Ilya 1666, he already was in the argument once so it's not convassing. M.V.E.i. 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oberiko

Please replace the image on the WW2 InfoBox. This image was chosen previously by a big majority and please make it temporary be while protected and before we reached the compromise. M.V.E.i. 05:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was chosen by a majority and at least for now while protected the most honest thing will be to put it and not Dana's which was denied by the same majority. M.V.E.i. 07:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But thats not fair!!!

A majority chose one. SHE reverted it, SHE broke the law, and after that she will have it her way?? Thats not fair!!! Theres a rule on wikipedia Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and this is the time to follow it. What you said is for cases when its a 50%-50% war. Here, a majority decided that the new one is better then that. M.V.E.i. 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A majority voted that her picture doesnt fit. It's not ok to keep the image that the majority is against. M.V.E.i. 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just step on the desicion of the majority. She started edit warring thought a majority decided and she's gonna have it her way? A co-concensus should ve reached so you put what the minority wants? It's not logical. Please revert. M.V.E.i. 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MVEI, can we keep this on the talk page for the WW2infobox? I've stated my reasons and restrictions there. Oberiko 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re: A little bit of patience

Thanks for your message. I was actually thinking the same thing; the arguing is starting to become more about the editors involved than the issue itself. I shouldn't make it any worse than it is. I'll be nice :) Parsecboy 16:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you say?

I belive the current image could be the best constant solution. If you and i support it, it will be marvelous. I dont think the others will object. M.V.E.i. 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term "British" in World War II

I'm disappointed to see that such an experienced and knowledgeable editor on WW2 articles has changed many references to "Allied", or to individual nationalities, in the "Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East" section of World War II to "British".[4] As far as I am concerned, the poor practices of past generations of military historians is no longer a good excuse. You need to know, if you don't already, that many people from Commonwealth countries object strongly to the use of "Britain" and/or "British" for the entire Empire/Commonwealth or several countries thereof, in wars fought by multinational Empire/Commonwealth forces. Furthermore, the Dominions of the "British Commonwealth" (as it was known officially in 1926-49) were capable of independent foreign policies after 1931. So it wasn't even the case that South African, New Zealand, Canadian, and Australian forces were ultimately under British political control. And I would be surprised if there were any campaigns (land, sea or air) in the Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East which were fought entirely by UK forces. I have now fixed this. Grant | Talk 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize if you took offense, but as it's supposed to be a very brief summary and all actions I listed took place under the banner of the United Kingdom I don't think it was factually incorrect. Oberiko 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they took place under the banner of the UK? Grant | Talk 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Led by a British general" is not the same thing as being "under the banner of the UK", whatever that means. Allied forces on D-Day were not "American" by virtue of Eisenhower's nationality. Grant | Talk 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British units, not just the General; using your SHAEF example, it was led by the American Eisenhower, but second in command was the British Arthur Tedder. Perhaps I'm missing some information, but how many Commonwealth units did not, following the chain of command, belong a British army or corps in North Africa? Oberiko 12:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you're going a bit overboard. Why did you change Royal Navy to Allied navies in regards to conflict with the Regia Marina? Is there a significant engagement with another Allied navy that I'm not aware of? Oberiko 12:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last first — the Royal Australian Navy: at least three cruisers and the "Scrap Iron Flotilla". For instance, HMAS Sydney was the main Allied unit at the Battle of Cape Spada, in which the Allies were led by Capt. John Collins.

As for the thing about "field armies" and "corps", well I doubt that the Eighth Army has often been called the "British Eighth Army" by many people in the countries involved in it; it was usually just "the Eighth Army" See also I Corps (Australia), which was involved in the Greek, Syrian and North African campaigns. In Greece it controlled UK, New Zealand and Greek units; in Syria it controlled Indian and Free French units. In 1942, it returned to Australia to take part in the South West Pacific campaigns. Grant | Talk 05:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing "redundant" categories

You appear to have a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy since you are removing category tags for absurd reasons and you have posted copyrighted material even though it is painfully obvious you are not supposed to do so. Please stop making such edits at once. Some guy 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't go as far as to make ad hominem attacks, I must have missed the corresponding discussion. What was it about those categories that were redundant? --Scottie_theNerd 05:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the various pages. Oberiko 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you were doing was removing "redundant" categories often without replacing them. For example, in the Call of Duty games, you simply took out First-person shooter, even though none of the other categories was close to this. You never discussed your changes with anyone or reached a consensus before beginning your massive attack on the category system. Some guy 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there is a school of thought that argues that, because different users may be interested in different categories, and because placing articles in multiple categories takes up minimal additional space, in some cases one should place articles in all the categories that apply." And again, you did not bother to discuss your changes with anyone. Some guy 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can have far reaching consequences. This is because category changes – and even more so template changes – can affect a large number of pages with a single edit. Templates, moreover, may have complex source code that can easily be broken by untested changes. Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." Some guy 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created new categories and recategorized dozens of pages. While this wasn't done all in one edit, it still has the same net effect.

I do disagree with the rigid vertical organization. The way I see it, your way only suits certain people while including all relevant category tags works for everyone. If I'm just looking at shooters in general, I don't want to have to dig through dozens of category pages to get a complete list. On the other hand, someone only interested in a specific category of first-person shooter (such as tactical shooter) can still go to that category to find exactly what he or she is looking for. Some guy 22:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taking your suggestions seriously: "shooter" is usually differentiated from "first-person shooter" when used formally, "video games" is possibly too broad and unused for indiviual games (although I wouldn't fight against it), and "games" is far too broad since it doesn't even specify medium. I'm conflicted about "video games with historical settings" - it seems incredibly unlikely that anyone would be looking for games based on historical settings and not have a specific setting or period in mind, but on the other hand I don't think it's too broad outright. "World War II games" is again probably too broad, since it doesn't even specify the media of the game, but on the otherhand it's almost entirely unused for individual articles so it probably wouldn't hurt. Some guy 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another complaint: tactical shooter games isn't even under first-person shooters, so it is not specific enough. Someone looking in the first-person shooter category would miss those games entirely. Some guy 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that copyvio was a personal reference which I had cited. It wasn't going on the wiki article directly but was more convenient then constantly hunting down the same (sometimes volatile) online sites and my books which are spread around various locations. Please do not modify my personal pages. Oberiko 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you are hosting copyrighted material on Wikipedia without permission. It's still a violation of copyright. But to be perfectly honest I didn't realize it was under your user account until after I marked it. Some guy 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII images

If you want an edit war be my guest, there is no concensus for the new change, clearly some people are unhappy with it. Dna-Dennis only made the changes a day ago. He made some changes, I put back some pictures, that does not mean that his new version gets to stay, the original version stays until there is concensus reached. Also, I did participate in the discussion and highlighted for each image that I put back why I thought that it should be kept.--Miyokan 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters in military terms

I couldn't find the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28capital_letters%29#Military_terms you mentioned in your Norwegian Campaign, campaign, or whatever. Could you provide me with a proper link? I don't have a problem with Norwegian Campaign over Norwegian campaign, but I would like to see the exact regulations so I'll know where to stand on the issue. Manxruler 06:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battleaxe peer review

I goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that if you feel the need to push back on any of my comments, please do. And thanks for checking out Omaha Beach as well. Really is appreciated. --FactotEm 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG

Hi. This map seems to indicate that Tobruk is roughly 55 + 10 km from Bardia. Looking at the official wartime maps suggests the distance is nearer 60 miles. Any thoughts? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Framework discussion

Thank you. It's an excellent initiative and a promising framework, and I'm glad to participate. My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 07:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII : 3rd level Framework discussion

Holy mother, Oberiko, that breakdown in your user space is sure looking ambitious! I am very well aware of the problems you are facing now, and I just want to tell you that I am nevertheless available for feedback/brainstorm, even though I know you're right in the middle of trying to provide a framework for the flow within the six main battle sections. I sense, or rather know, that this is indeed challenging, so feel free to drop me a note on whatever stuff or even delegating work. My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I hope you haven't missed the benefits of consulting List_of_military_engagements_of_World_War_II#Battles. I actually didn't think of it until now...--Dna-Dennis 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the stripes & the data on Asian losses. Let me know if I can help with statistical data on military conflicts. Now I will be watching The Tailor of Panama--Woogie10w 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna take it!

I kept my word and havent returned my image to the WW2 article, but someone returned the one with the big Normandy (i know it's not you, but who else will i ask?). While someone is going to return the image with the Big Normandy one, i'm going to return mine. I wasn't the one starting it. M.V.E.i. 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the map. But we will need a common effort to keep the concensus, to make shure a map stays. M.V.E.i. 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion with Parsecboy i entered there the green map you suggested. It's not animated and therefor not cool as the previous one, but it as i can see is more favourable. M.V.E.i. 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going on WW2!

Nice going on the WW2 rewrite, Oberiko! You are damn productive and I have a hard time keeping up with you. I've just reviewed War breaks out and will examine Axis advance ASAP. I just want to cut in here on some issues:

Chronological: It seems as if you are going chronological as much as possible, and I take the blame as your main instigator here :). Right now, it seems you are going even further than I in 2005, and after reading your Axis advance, your approach might be even better (i.e. varying the theaters within the section text itself, without theater headers). To me, it's still comprehensible, and probably even better for the average reader, but it's harder for you to implement. Hats off here, and I hope this will not become more problematic after Dec 1941.

Compression/Distribution: If you continue with this chronological hardline, the resulting article will surely be significantly smaller (and that was one thing we were after!). Furthermore, I think this chronology hardline will make the article less sensitive to future info overload. The bulk texts of the sections will also probably be more equally distributed (Background, Course sections, Impact, Aftermath), and all these things are good.

Later actual replacement: Since the compression will be substantial, we'll later have to be careful not removing info which aren't present in subarticles, but I'm sure you thought of this. This is a later problem, so don't care about that now. I'll help out here as well.

My regards, --Dna-Dennis 08:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 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 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Russian Website

Hi I just found this cool website in Russian with statistics on WW2- [5]--Woogie10w 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the chevrons, Oberiko! W. B. Wilson 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template too far

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A template too far --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Valentine tank hierarchy.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Valentine tank hierarchy.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 15:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial cost on military infobox

I replied to your concerns about the financial cost item at Template talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#Financial cost. Superm401 - Talk 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Canadian Coptic Center.jpg & Image:St Mark's CopticChurch--TO.jpg

Hello, there.

I just wanted to know if you're able to take a picture of the Coptic Orthodox Church Center in Mississauga OR St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Toronto. You can find out the street address online (the links to those websites are on the image pages). The current images are, unfortunately, copyrighted, as I was the one who uploaded them.

The current (copyrighted) images may get deleted, so if they do, then I'll need to replace them.

I need you or somebody else to take a picture, release its copyright, and upload it onto Wikipedia. I HAVE contacted others to notify them also, so if there are more than one pictures, that's OK (I can still make an article on them). I want these images to be used for, specifically, the article "Coptic Orthodox Church in Canada". The image pages are, again:

Toronto: Image:St Mark's CopticChurch--TO.jpg
Mississauga: Image:Canadian Coptic Center.jpg

~ Troy 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the world

Would you be interested in helping to make a high detail historical map of the world, like the one of northern Africa for the Western Desert Campaign article ? I think it could be useful and if it were made properly it could be used as a base map to quickly create smaller maps for individual articles. I like creating maps, but it takes time to for me to find exactly where historic borders are, and as you have seen I make the occasional mistake ! Also input on the type of features to put on the map would be good. Jackaranga 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Star Wars battles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Star Wars battles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Star Wars battles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Star Wars battles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stug3g.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stug3g.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:StugIII at Kursk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StugIII at Kursk.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]