Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Our project worklist contains some of the articles we're working on, together with a rating of their quality. It's not nearly complete, though, so please feel free to add any articles you work on if they aren't already listed there!
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malo. I noticed your No license tag on Image:Audic Rizk berlin.jpg. FYI, all photographs are automatically copyrighted under U.S. copyright law. The photographer, who owns the copyright, then chooses how to license the image, such as releasing it under the GFDL. "Copyrighted" does not necessarily mean "no free use". ~MDD469622:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem why we should presume it is under GFDL. The uploader did not tag it with any license, hence how are we to know the correct license? I think of this image as being more along the lines of fairuse, but since I can't prove either license appropriate, it really doesn't matter. Thanks for leaving a message about this. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)23:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader does not specify an image's license, and it is apparent that he was the creator, he obviously intends for it to be used on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia encourages GFDL licensing, we assume good faith and tag it as such. In this case, the user probably wouldn't care if we deleted it anyways since it seems that his page is just an advertisement... ~MDD469600:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary Speedy Deletion
You just deleted my artile on edPod for "csd a7, extreme vanity, no case made for notability".
None of the information was extreme vanity, and was quoted by the maker. Also included factual team information.
Please can you replace deleted article or give me more feedback!
Is there a source for the table used at the start of so many ship articles? I'm new to this, and while I'm capable in computer areas, I'm not yet familiar with many Wikipedia tools. I want to post some ship articles, and maybe there's a better way than just copying the table from some ship's entry and changing the information.
Lou Sander13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers
I don't see where the vandalism in Cheers was.
1. It is a FACT that there was no non-bar scenes til the first episode of the second season. I don't see where the problem is.
2. You can read numerous reviews on the series that the writers dropped Sam's personal issues after Diane left, and actually stressed some his negative personality traits (womanizing) and all but eliminated others (alcoholism)
3. The 8th season DVD is due June 13, 2006. I don't see the issue there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.166.135 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 May 2006
You're absolutely correct. I made a mistake there. You shouldn't have received a warning and what you did wasn't vandalism. I have already reverted that article to your last version. I am sorry for the inconvenience. It was a stupid mistake on my part. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxen deletor
I noticed that you deleted some of the userboxen that I had on my user page. How do you tell which ones are divisive and which ones aren't? - Nat Krause(Talk!)02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The userboxes I deleted all fall under WP:CSD T1, at least in my view, they are divisive political userboxes. I realize that my actions are probably not all that popular. However please be assured that I take no stand for either side of any of the political issues at hand, and that I have only done what I have done because I do not wish to see Wikipedia be a battle ground for such heated political issues. Instead I think that this is a needed step in order to maintain the WP:NPOV both in the mainspace and in the userspace. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)03:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. But what are the criteria by which you decide which userboxen are divisive and which aren't? There are many political userboxen. Which ones are you going to delete? - Nat Krause(Talk!)03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my view it pretty much includes any political userbox that starts with "This user supports...". where the supporting item is potentially an inflammatory topic. I realize this is the vast majority of political userboxes. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another question: how in the world do you decide that the userbox advocating the abolishment of Republika Srpska is "divisive" but let the userbox advocating the independence of Republika Srpska stay? Live Forever15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, (and in fact), it is because I haven't seen it yet. Just because some have remained up to this point does not mean that they do not fall under this divisive usage. Also the fact there are a massive number of userboxes makes it rather difficult to catch them all at once. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I'm not very wedded to any userbox or userboxen. You might want to take a look at my userpage; probably all of my userboxen are divisive. - Nat Krause(Talk!)19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the massive number of userboxes you took off the regional politics page, I find that a little odd. But whatever the case, I do hope you will give a page about such sensetive political issues the more thorough look it deserves. Live Forever23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that these are sensitive topics is the fundamental aspect of their divisive nature. I'd ask that you see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes. Basically, such userboxes are "are bad for the project" because "They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." I'm not asking individuals to stop believing or supporting such causes, however I would ask that you do remove such userboxes from your userpage. And at the same time I do plan to remove them from the project. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)01:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should not delete userboxes on your own without proper process. You know that the proposed new policy on userboxes has not been approved yet. I am personally against them anyway as I generally found they make people get a simplistic stereotype of you, instead weighting your actions. In any case, you should not start a mass deletion campaign without proper arguments against the deletion of each individual template (otherwise, start removing {{Template:User UK Labour}} and the like :o) ). If I am wrong and you have indeed discussed the issue and process being followed, please add a link to this on each talk page for the templates you removed as a matter of civility and respect for other wikipedians. Regards, --Asteriontalk to me06:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted all of these userboxes under the criteria of WP:CSD T1. Speedy deletions require no further debate. If you disagree with my reasoning for using T1, then please make it plain and clear how and why you disagree with me. If you feel that a single userbox that I have deleted does not deserve to be so, then please bring it before WP:DRVU and make a case for it there. Also just because I haven't deleted Template:User_UK_Labour yet, doesn't mean I find it acceptable. There are a great many userboxes out there that need to be removed from the template space in the near future. I don't feel as if I am disrespecting any other wikipedians out there or being uncivil by deleting such userboxes. I plainly expect to be disliked by some (or many), but that does not detract from the fact that these userboxes are giving other users and new users the wrong idea about what it means to be a wikipedian. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that a simple copy-and-pasted note with a link to WP:DRVU would be nice. You could have also checked their talk page to check whether there were any complains on a userbox being inflammatory indeed. I know you were just using your own judgement but this is stretching the Speedy Deletion policy far too much. Yes, Jimbo asked individual Wikipedians to consider removing polemical userboxes from their user pages, but the Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes was rejected by the community. I will not be bringing a case for any particular userbox, as I am personally against them all, but I know that many people would like to indeed. In a perfect world, only blatantly offensive userboxes should be removed (i.e. This user hates Niggas) till the whole userbox debate is finalised and a real policy agreed upon. Asteriontalk to me17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-Deleting userboxes can, and has indeed, caused division and ill-will (see example below). I am in favour of calmly discussing with the users or creators of the userboxes, or nominating the userboxes for deletion on WP:TfD. Please refer to the ongoing discussion at T1_and_userboxes. Your opinion is greatly appreciated. --Asteriontalk to me18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User yugoslav reunification
Who told you to delete this template? There was users who have had this template on personal pages. You should know that whis Wikipedia have templates like: supporting Kosovo independence, suporting Kosovo in Serbia, supporting Republika Srpska independence etc. Supporting reunification of Yugoslavia is legal and democtatic, but deleting of this template is not tolerance of users oppinion. Please revert deleting on way you know, or I should do that. Best regards. --Pockey18:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was wondering when somebody would revert that! I thank you, however, for not reomivng Image:Rock Lee.jpg. Next time I vioilate fair use on my userpage (which I seem to do a lot), please tell me and I will revert it mtself. TheRepublican21:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why did you delete the template:Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The template is fair game, since Serbian's have the template:independence of Republica Srpska.
Thanks for the font-close! It was a mistake, but once I realized it continued to pink the text, I thought it'd be cute to leave it like that and font-close manually at the end of the line. Sadly, I don't always remember to do so, but never got around to fixing /sig. :)
Hopefully I'll be around in ze sekrit commandroom later to annoy ya. :)
I only noticed it when the next person left a message after you gave me the barnstar. The edit button as well as the next header were in pink. :) Which is fine, but I doubt that was the intent of the proceeding message. I should have left you a message and told you that I changed it, sorry. I won't be checking das commandantvoom for a few days, but I'll follow up any comments you've left there when I return. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)03:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know that big pink header thing at the top of my talk page? I could set you up with that! It'd be like, so totally cute!
It doesn't matter that much to me. It's just that two other administrator's blocked this account for significantly longer periods. My guess was that you were unaware of this and that your block would conflict theirs. It's fine at 3 hours. Thanks for leaving me a message about this. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I told User:Dante7777 that I'd unblock him if he reads and agrees to our basic rules. I'll take responsibility for watching his edits closely and will reblock at the first sign of trouble. Is that OK with you? Cheers, -Will Beback20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this user is persistant in requesting an unblock is not sufficient reason in my mind to grant him/her one. However since you have already granted this user an unblock. I will sit back and watch for now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)21:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tolland class ships
I've just finished setting up articles on all the ships in this category (there were one or a few pre-existing). The box for the category seems to be in no particular order, and I'm thinking it would be best to organize it. I don't know if that can be done. If there's a page somewhere on it, I don't know how to get to it. Also, I'd like to know about/establish categories for the other classes of AKA. Anything you can do to help me understand all this will be greatly appreciated. Lou Sander22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted USS Wasatch (AGC-9), which needs one of those dummy photographs / placeholders. I've seen them on ship pages, but I can't find one now. Can you help? (Two more ships, and I'm done with North Carolina Shipbuilding.) Lou Sander19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5" Gun Nomenclature
I just noticed that the ship articles I've posted include an erroneous description for the main gun. The gun was known as a 5"/38. It is erroneously described as a 5 in (127 mm)/.38 The big problem is the decimal point before the 38. Guns are described by the diameter of the shell, followed by the length of the barrel as a multiple of that diameter. So the barrel of a 5"/38 is 38 x 5 = 190 inches. I'm thinking that the (127 mm) isn't so desirable, either. Though it's nice to use the metric system, to do so here is to meddle with the "official" and well-known name of something.
Maybe there's an article about the 5"/38, which was a very common gun. If not, I'd like to create one. Important in all this would be the choosing of a "standard" name. In any event, it's incorrect to include the decimal point. I can remove it from all the articles I've posted, but there may be dozens or hundreds more. (I don't think I introduced the error, but of course I may be wrong.) Is there a practical way to correct automatically this potentially widespread error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 May 2006
I don't know where to answer your post to me. If I do it here, you definitely see it, but I can't see the message I'm replying to. Please let me know if there's a better way.
I don't think the "Mark" method is the way to go. I'm not an expert, but I remember learning about this stuff in Navy ROTC class. The "Mark" is a designation analogous to a version number of software. There can be Mark 12 versions of several different guns, for example.
The standard nomenclature for Naval guns in the 1960s was the bore size followed by the length of the barrel, as in 5"/38. There was also a newer 5"/54, which may have used different ammunition. There were several "Marks" of the 5"/38 -- an old, open one as used on the North Carolina Shipbuilding ships and the like; a dual-gun one used on destroyers; and I think another dual-gun one used on larger ships (not sure about this). There IS a lot of info about them on the Internet. There's a good Wikipedia article that lists a lot of different artillery guns. I saw it this morning, but I didn't bookmark it. As I remember, it was weak on the 5"/38. I'll try to find it. Lou Sander18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is List of artillery. It includes the 5"/54, and uses that nomenclature (which I currently think is the proper one). The article to which it links uses a different nomenclature, maybe because of the "inch" mark and the slash. Lou Sander18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TAIWAN
Hi! Could you post the renaming request back on the request's page? Please also state the reasons mentioned on my talk page. I'd like the other b'crats to evaluate this case. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could make that argument for a great deal of articles on Wikipedia. If you were a HS student in Minnesota it'd be relevant to you (or it'd have some meaning)...For the record I was going to add more, including sources, pics, and more relevant info...Hence the reason why I posted the holdon code on there...
