User talk:Hemlock Martinis/Archive 2

excuse me

But I never wrote that personal attack on the articles for deletion talk. It was the Ip, and I just tagged it for CSD, now you have restored the vandalism! The sunder king 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just realized that. My apologies! --Hemlock Martinis 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the attacks from the talk page anyway. Can I remove the warning? The sunder king 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the page. If it pops up again I'll take action against that IP. And I've already removed the warning from your talk page. --Hemlock Martinis 09:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Dynasty related articles

Thanks Hemlock Martinis, appreciate it. Funny that you should mention the featured topic, since Technology of the Song Dynasty is up for Featured Article Candidate right now. Feel free to hit the talk page if you want to make a comment. Peace!--PericlesofAthens 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention, in addition to the main Song Dynasty, both the History and Technology articles are already Good Articles.--PericlesofAthens 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, noted! --Hemlock Martinis 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLAST it!

You get to Bill Day for Delegate - Virginia 31st House of Delegates all 5 seconds before I finish saving by own {{db}} diatribe against it! 68.39.174.238 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry about that! Thank you for the barnstar! --Hemlock Martinis 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyanide Cocktails

Is this really you, or is it an impersonator? Just wondering :-) ugen64 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, don't worry. Good reaction time, though! --Hemlock Martinis 06:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

sorry to bother with you this, but i needed an active admin's advice, and you're the only one i saw in the recent pages list. this user, User:Sex Rising, only has two edits, both to their user page, which is a copy and paste of the Dead Rising article, except that they have changed words in the article to various sex references etc. i'm sure this can't be allowed, but i don't really know what to do about it, which i came to you. thanks --Jac16888 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh heh, never mind, page was deleted while i was typing this. sorry for wasting your time--Jac16888 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, will do--Jac16888 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on EU Turkish accession article

To be honest I thought it didn't quite work, but I'll create another version. One thing though, the flag doesn't fit neatly with the state lines in, would you have any objections to the EU displayed as a whole? - J Logan ^t: 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great!

I would love to use that for the Song Dynasty! It looks awesome. I really am shooting for featured topic now as well, since 3 of the articles are now GA, and one is at least FA.--PericlesofAthens 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Jungle Fury Update

Thanks to source footage and Ranger Uniform designs from Toei we can confirm 2 other colors. Viloet and White. White Ranger has a Rhino Zord and Violet Ranger has a Wolf Zord. I have constructed the page Jungle Fury Power Rangers. Please save and it can be updated with Ranger Names and profiles once the show starts in February 2008. Thanks

Why are you telling me this? --Hemlock Martinis 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regions of the Americas

Hello Hemlock. I am RS2007. I am a new Wikipedian. I created the category 'Regions of the Americas'. However, there are no subcategories. How can I add subcategories? Can you please improve the category 'Regions of the Americas'? Regards, RS2007 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robert E. Lee

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Robert E. Lee, 1865 (edit).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

Hi HM,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Robert E. Lee, 1865 (edit).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 1, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-12-01. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono!

You can't "merge and delete" - this has come up in AfDs before, and it can't be done because it's not compliant with the GFDL. Please change your statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid before you get deluged with people pointing this out. :-) -- ChrisO 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For chapter and verse in this, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26#United States military aid to Israel. Doc Glasgow probably put it best - "It is not possible to delete and merge. The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect." -- ChrisO 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

What makes you think that you have the right to add comments to a closed AFD? Just curious. --Leifern 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict as I submitted my closure. I contacted ^demon on IRC to jokingly complain, and another administrator suggested I do an endorsement. If ^demon expresses a problem with it, I'll remove it. --Hemlock Martinis 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so would you mind if I added a comment to it as well? --Leifern 02:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would mind. You're not closing an AfD. --Hemlock Martinis 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither were you. You were "endorsing" a closure. I forget, what do you call a person who thinks different rules apply to him/her than to others? --Leifern 02:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if it really bugs you that much, report me on AN/I. --Hemlock Martinis 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning for deliberately changing something that explicitly says "do not change." Please show me where the concept of "co-closure" has widespread acceptance. As for ChrisO's suggestion of reporting me to AN/I, I'll resist my temptation to make some rather outlandish suggestions and instead encourage both of you to take your admin responsibilities a bit more seriously rather than resort to bullying. It is not outragous to ask that everyone - even admins - respect the rule that closed AFDs not be edited after they are closed. --Leifern 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've bullied anyone. I explained in my first response why I did it. You're the only person raising any concerns about what I did. --Hemlock Martinis 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, so what if I was the only one? Second, others who defended your reasoning thought that I was justified in criticizing the "co-closure." Third, if the rule about not adding or modifying to a closed AFD is to have any meaning at all, it is inappropriate to criticize anyone who reverts such a change. Both you and ChrisO seem to think that I am completely in the wrong in this case, and ChrisO is going so far as to encourage you to report me to the admin noticeboard. That, in my book is an attempt at admin bullying. --Leifern 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't equal consensus. Unless you're secretly Jimbo, of course. I've explained myself and you're still the only one complaining about it. And as for ChrisO's actions - 1) I have no control over them, so what he does is his doing and not mine, 2) I assumed you acted in good faith when removing my endorsement the first time around so I didn't feel the need to go to AN/I, and 3) Admin bullying? Are you kidding? I have not bullied you one bit. --Hemlock Martinis 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances, because you and ^demon were closing simultaneously, I think we'd call it a co-closure. It's actually quite fortuitous because it shows that two admins, operating independently, came to much the same decision using the same policy arguments - rather a good rebuttal of the claim that it's an arbitrary personal decision on ^demon's part. Incidentally, I think that it's totally inappropriate that Leifern attempted to remove your statement. If he persists you would be more than justified to report it to AN/I or AIV. -- ChrisO 07:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer endorsement, since he did close it first and independently of me. Co-closure seems to hint at collusion, which did not occur. Also, Leifern has not attempted to remove my endorsement a second time, and since this is quite unusual, I don't feel there's a problem. --Hemlock Martinis 07:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I agree with your reasoning, by the way - I came to the same decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid for pretty much the same reasons. But you put it much more eloquently than me. :-) -- ChrisO 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I personally prefer to make longwinded explanations; it sure saves me trouble in the long run since I have something to source back to. --Hemlock Martinis 07:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'll bear that in mind next time I close a controversial AfD! -- ChrisO 08:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of French apartheid

Hello,

this article was protected. You don't have the right to edit it as any other contributor. Can you revert your edit ? [1]. Thanks in advance. Poppypetty 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a category to bring it in line with the other apartheid allegation articles and their categorizations. Is that really a problem? --Hemlock Martinis 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :). There is a content dispute on this article as many users feel that this article is irrelevant. Adding the category is a link to THE apartheid (in South Africa) which I (and other users) find outrageous. Can you remove the link ? Thanks. Poppypetty 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the category is used for the Saudi Arabian, Brazilian and Israeli allegation articles as well. It's no different than having an infobox about it. --Hemlock Martinis 02:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the admin noticeboard that there's a merge preparation underway, so I'll remove the category. --Hemlock Martinis 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 140.94.82.30 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and explanation

Just to be clear: I did not mean to imply or express that your decision to close the AFD on Allegations of Chinese apartheid was made in bad faith. I still think that the decision was wrong and misguided, but I think this is a matter of an honest disagreement.

I do, however, think that modifying the closing edit is inappropriate and out of order. I will raise this issue for general discussion when the "allegations of xxx apartheid" has died down and will specifically make clear that I am only seeking a clarification on practice and policy, not on your conduct. --Leifern 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, and seeing as how it's an unusual occurrence, I can fully understand the confusion. I think clarification is a good idea, and when you bring the issue up for community discussion after ArbCom's all done with, I'd be more than happy to take part in the debate. --Hemlock Martinis 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure format

Hemlock, when closing an AFD, ensure that the {{subst:at}} is added to the very top of the AFD page, above the section title. This ensures that the entire AFD is enclosed in a closure box on the corresponding dated AFD page. I've fixed a couple of formats for AFDs that were started on 8 August and closed by you. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, sorry about that! Thank you for notifying me! --Hemlock Martinis 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Question

You recently closed the AfD for Spells in Harry Potter ([2]) because there had been a previous debate a few days ago. The previous debate had closed twelve days before the current one opened and I was wondering what kind of minimum time period was applicable before renominating for AfD ([3]). The origional AfD a WP:SNOW closed when the nomination was withdrawn. [[Guest9999 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The nominator seemed to have complaints about the closure of the previous AfD. Rather than wait around for a new one, I closed the second one so he could DRV the first one. I'm glad to see that there is indeed a DRV underway. --Hemlock Martinis 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Europe Proposal

Hi, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in a new "WikiProject:Europe"? It would cover non-EU pan European elements and more national elements where there isn't a project to cover it (e.g. there is no project for Slovenia). I am just trying to get an idea of numbers before I propose it but if you have comments on the idea please see the Discussion on WPEU. Thanks for your time! - J Logan ^t: 08:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spells in Harry Potter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guest9999 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I have no interest in the article itself. --Hemlock Martinis 18:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template at Talk:Ted Frank

Hemlock, would you please consider removing the template you just added to that talk page? Assuming you went there from the AN/I ... erm, discussion ;-), you should know that it has become very controversial. Anyways, the subject of the article does not want to be readily identified on Wikipedia, and has suggested that he will not edit his biography, which (IMO) renders the template somewhat moot.

Anyways, thank you for your consideration. --Iamunknown 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see the ongoing discussion about the template on that talk page. Nevertheless, he is an editor of Wikipedia, is he not? He is hardly anonymous; after all, his old username was the same name as the article. I won't remove the template. I would like to commend you for approaching me civilly. This whole fracas has become far too incivil already. --Hemlock Martinis 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as I suggested here, we could come to an agreement that we will leave the notice off of the talk page unless THF ever edits the article or the talk page. He claims that he won't, and that would certainly provide a good carrot for him to avoid any AUTO issues. Cool Hand Luke 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Absolutely not. He does not edit his own page, period. Nobody does. His editing of his own article is irrelevant, and not something to negotiate. --Hemlock Martinis 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true, and it's certainly not true for users editing their talk pages. But at any rate, if user never even touches the talk page, there's no adequate need for the notice. Users are not going to let his edits slide by; there is no AUTO purpose being served. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding me. Nobody's allowed to edit their articles, ever. I wasn't suggesting that it's not done, I'm saying it's not allowed. I don't see why we should make an exception on the template for this guy. --Hemlock Martinis 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than WP:AUTO demands. At any rate, he doesn't want to edit the page or the talk page. He does not want his user name connected on wikipedia, and he'll certainly stay away. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then he might as well start a new account and disappear himself, because he's ensured through this mess that everybody knows who he is. The template should stay. --Hemlock Martinis 02:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself: will that help or hinder our ability to monitor his AUTO contributions? Maybe in this case policy should triumph over convention for the good of the project? Cool Hand Luke 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see how it would hurt. I also don't see why viewers wouldn't want to know that this guy is an active contributor. --Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corner symbol

You know, I'm not really sure where that stuff can be found - I just saw it on someone else's page and decided you needed one. The actual template for that wasn't in an obvious place, but searching a given subject in the Template space only (like this search here) might work for browsing around. The one I added is here, and there are a few other options for it that you can use, as well. I'm glad you liked it! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Jewish Temples in the Bronx

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jewish Temples in the Bronx, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jewish Temples in the Bronx is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jewish Temples in the Bronx, 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. CSDWarnBot 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Union

Hi there. I saw that you undid my reversion on the Continental Union article that removed Australia as a current Continental Union. Might I ask why? The primary contributors to add it have also been accused of vandalism on other wikipedia pages. And none have chosen to recently discuss the matter on the article's talk page. I'd be happy to let it stand if you say so, but I really don't see a need for Australia to be listed as a current Continental Union given the lack of international sovereignty of its states. Feel free to address me on my own take page or here. Thanks for your time. Lonelywurm 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was your removal of African Union and your incorrect piping of North American Union that I meant to revert. Go ahead and remove Australia again, but please do not alter the others. Thanks. --Hemlock Martinis 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinestro War

that article wasn't necessary; At this point it can still be combined with Sinestro Corps.--Leocomix 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they are two entirely separate articles. One is about the fictional supervillain team. The other is about the real-world storyline, which is quite notable in and of itself thanks to financial and critical reactions. --Hemlock Martinis 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor engaged in more disruption

Please explain what you are doing interfering with the evidence I've put to the ArbCom. It concerns an allegedly disruptive user, one of the motions being debated is blocking him for a month. I've presented two pieces of evidence, one of him doing more or less the same as he's being criticised for, one of him being disruptive on TalkPages in a different way. Then he comes to the evidence I present, and he seeks to disrupt that as well. (He's not disputing my evidence or claiming it's somehow misleading - and if he had such a problem, it would not belong in my section anyway). Why are you encouraging him? What business is it of yours what evidence I put to the ArbCom? Can they not be trusted to evaluate my evidence without the half-baked commentary? PalestineRemembered 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misread the title in my watchlist and thought you were removing them from the talk page. Go ahead and remove them if you wish. --Hemlock Martinis 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I've had the most astonishing amount of trouble at Wikipedia (I've still never received any explanation, retraction or apology for a patently false allegation of "taking my views from Holocaust Deniers" and an attempt to perma-block me by a top adminstrator).

I've had a great deal of other prolonged harrassment in WP, including aggressive attacks on "evidence", as I thought you were trying to carry out. It's only just occurred to me that, in decades of cyber-space participation, I've never used an "ethnically specific" nickname before. But I can tell you, the next stranger who pops out of nowhere and tries to bully me (as you appeared to want to do) will be exorcised for racism! PalestineRemembered 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uncatstub}} edit

Unfortunately, this completely defeats the purpose of having this as a separate entity, to wit to prevent the already-very-backlogged maintenance category of entirely uncategorised articles from being further swamped with the similarly-vast (and potentially much larger, if they were being systematically tagged, as they're not at present) cases that at least have a topical stub template. There may be some purpose in including them in the "absolutely all uncategorised pages, of any kind" cat, but not the main per-month ones, please. See the earlier discussion at here, and elsewhere at that page. BTW, where a template is in such heavy use, and (uncoincidentally enough) is protected, it's generally good form to get some sort of consensus beforehand. Alai 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it'd be easier to have them all in one place. Stubs or not, they're still uncategorized and belong in the by month categories. --Hemlock Martinis 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look at the above link? Or indeed, the size of the categories? 'Easier' isn't the word that springs to mind. The point isn't whether they're stubs or not, it's whether they have (sorted) stub categories. If they do, they're (IMO clearly, and according to the consensus of the above discussion) a significantly different case as regards "maintenance triage". Alai 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I had checked the talk page of the templates, I saw no discussion about the issue and assumed there had been done. I've reverted my changes. --Hemlock Martinis 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Officedvdseason3.png

The tagging of Image:Officedvdseason3.png stands not by itself. The two other covers of The Office DVDs were already deleted. The uploader of this image has no problems with its deletion. I believe the image should not be in Wikipedia and the current fair use rationale does not explain the significance in the article. I want to nominate the image for deletion. Please contact me if you have any questions. – Ilse@ 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired damaged poster/image & Coverted from JPEG to PNG

Enjoy: .

But maybe you can do the cleanup? Or find someone to do it? I didn't want to go to Wiki Commons. And I found you on the Talk page. From there and that I duduced that you might like or love this image. So, . . ..

Best regards, --Ludvikus 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

x country

please provide examples of 'x country diffuse' that you mention. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the diffuse template, it is not only asking editors to work on diffusing existing articles into sub-categories, but also to encourage editors to place future articles into sub-categories instead of directly into the category. It is the latter use that I was making of the template as I had just spent a lot of time doing diffuse work in these categories and do not want to have to go back later and do similar work again. Hmains 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's exactly what it's for, but those categories are fairly cut and dry...no new countries are expected to form anytime soon, so we shouldn't have too much of a problem with people putting them in there. --Hemlock Martinis 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move question

Hi there. You moved a page that I created; Air transport in the United Kingdom, after I had mistakenly capitalised the title. I am watching this page and I was wondering why this change, which does show in the history, did not appear in my watchlist. No problem here - just curious. --FactotEm 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria

Please don't wheel war, you are liable to lose your admin status over it. This is your last warning. Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion about the name is still ongoing, please stop unilaterally changing it. And that was my only warning, from the looks of it. --Hemlock Martinis 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion area for United States General articles

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]