User talk:Michael Dorosh/Archive 1

Old archives

Hi Michael, I'm glad we got the copyright problems resolved. I noticed that you hadn't received a welcome message, so here you go...

Welcome!

Hello Michael Dorosh/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- GraemeL ^(talk) 14:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Canadian Division

I would like to help you copyediting the article. When you're working on it, please insert {{inuse}} at the top of the page and remove it when you're done. This will display a wrning that the article is being worked on at the top of the page and help us avoid getting edit conflicts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you are working on it - formatting looks great! I'll let you at it for a bit; I have a map I just uploaded to accompany the article. I'm at work anyway and didn't want to leave the formatting in such a mess, but I see you are on the case! Thanks again.

Still working on it off and on. I tend to get bored easily when copyediting, though I will see it through to the end over the next day or two.

The "Royal visit" section refers to a photograph, do you have, or could you obtain permission for us to use the picture in question?

I also discovered that we have a pre-existing article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, though it's only a few paragraphs long. I'll finish up the wikification of your version, then merge it with the other article (if there is anything there that isn't in your version) and change Second Canadian Division to redirect to 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I confused you, I was referring to Wikipedia pages, not pages on your site. 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, here at Wikipedia, is also about the division in WW2. :-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my work on your article and merged it as I proposed above. In the new location, the only remnants of the original article are a couple of paragraphs used in the introduction. The rest is yours.

You might want to go through it and check that my links to people and Canadian units go to the correct places. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper!: Is "Parallelogram" more accurate?

(Repeated from the Sniper! talk page just in case you're not watching it.) Looking at what photos I can find of Sniper! it looks like the buildings and vehicles are all parallelograms. Trapezoids is also accurate, but paralellogram would seem to be more accurate. I gather you're familiar with the game. If my belief is true, it would improve the page. Alan De Smet | Talk 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments over at the Sniper page. ;)Michael Dorosh 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F&M

Thanks for making it a better article than my original one. I have a lot of respect for those days of miniatures gaming, but my memory failed me on details. Good stuff.--Mike Selinker 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Root beer

I have never heard this assertion concerning root beer, though as one who greatly enjoys the beverage, perhaps I am merely an "immature or uncultured person." Deep Space Nine is a work of fiction, would you at least provide a better verifiable source than this? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzkrieg myth

Hi, do you know how an when this myth was born ? I would suspect Nazi propaganda machine, but it would be goo to know. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Canadian flags

Thanks for the fix on the historical Canadian flags on my user page! Out of curiosity, was the earlier flag a different shade of red in actuality, or is it just the graphics we have on WP? Thanks again. -- Jonel | Speak 09:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Didn't realize that was your user page...glad you're ok with that. I believe the shade of red stayed the same in the flags, officially. In practice, depended on material used. The main differences in the 1924 ensign and the 1957 ensign were the maple leaves (1924 green, 1957 red), but also some other minor points - the woman on the Irish harp had her breasts obscured in the 1957 flag, the Scottish rampant lion had the border changed from one line to two. So they tell me, anyway. :-)Michael Dorosh 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page at this point is mostly for keeping track of which Olympics articles I need to focus on as well as useful information for use creating those articles, so I really do appreciate any help I can get with correcting the flags and such. -- Jonel | Speak 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Military History Task Force

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A decent manual for MediaWiki

From my experience with it, I think the code needs to become a lot cleaner before a manual should be attempted. I don't know whether this will happen as MediaWiki develops or whether a fork for non-wikipedia-use of mediawiki will be needed... at least at the moment it's been possible to do pretty much everything i wanted to with mediawiki (except add a wysiwyg editor - but i'm hoping they'll do that for wikipedia so i can just steal it) at webbed.org/libra.

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in at Sun tanning :) Wyss 04:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I'm not a prude, but this is an encyclopedia, not a friggin' porn site. Michael Dorosh 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise at AH. Wyss 06:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for causes of all these users making identical reverts and assertions at AH, it does seem to be a tit-for-tat overflow skirmish from an edit war at Christianity, with User:Str1977 being punished or whatever. Wyss 09:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's bloody annoying. Bad enough half the edits on this site seem to be vandalism from unregistered users (why they still don't demand registration is beyond me), but people coming in to change stuff (poorly) after consensus has been reached is quite baffling. Michael Dorosh 09:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree about unregistered users. Anyway I've posted something on the AH talk page about what I think is spillover from Christianity. I think they're tag-teaming on Str1977 out of spite and I think it's at least a technical vio of WP:Stalking, what to do about it's another tale though. Wyss 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (sarcastic)

I was hoping nobody would notice that I spelt grammar incorrectly. I noticed it right after I hit save. But now that you've pointed it out... :) Anyway, thanks for the kick in the pants. LOL --Arch26 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Sun

Please feel free to reword the example I used. The fact was it was pretty blatantly an attempt to whitewash the whole thing (BTW I'm a former Sun employee and remember well when the paper all but refused to give major coverage to any of Klein's competitors in one of the "coronation" elections of the late 1990s). It is true that on the same day Don Martin (Herald columnist) lambasted Harper for his choice, the Sun said "well we aren't thrilled but Paul Martin's Liberals did this, this and this" -- trying to deflect the issue. Of course I can't use the term "Whitewash" in any way because that is clearly POV, even though that's how I saw it (and there have been a number of letters to the editors in recent days that echo my view). If you can think of a better term than "wait and see", please do. However I think the example is sound. 23skidoo 07:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler under attack

Regarding your Revision [1] as of 21:57, 13 February 2006 wherein your comment says: "you can't suggest he was gay and then label him as gay - removed category". For the record, Professor Lothar Machtan in fact declared Adolf Hitler was gay. My use of the category "Gay politicians" for Adolf Hitler is predicated upon the same criteria as other Wikipedians have used for similar such categorizing of Alexander the Great, Edward II of England plus dozens more. In fact, in the case of Hitler there is far more evidence that he was gay than for many others placed in a "gay" category at Wikipedia. Karl Schalike 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael, let's put aside the intro disputes at Adolf Hitler for a while, as graver issues have arisen. Hitler is under serious POV attack, as you can also see above. Help is appreciated. Str1977 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken action and deleted the categorization again. What next - David Irving to come along and say Hitler was misunderstood? Michael Dorosh 16:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH is widely misunderstood but, uhm, not the way David Irving would tell it :) Wyss 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information. It should be noted that there is some evidence that User:Karl Schalike is identical with User:Ted Wilkes and multi-hardbanned User:DW. See Schalike's contribution supporting the deleting and reverting tactics by Ted Wilkes which were criticized by several Wikipedia administrators here. For facts supporting the view that Ted Wilkes is a sockpuppet of DW, see [2]. Ted Wilkes is currently placed on probation and banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [[3]]. He was, and still is, involved in an edit war with me concerning claims that some celebrity stars such as James Dean, Elvis Presley and Nick Adams may have been bisexual or gay. Last year Wilkes even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page I had created to a Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but this page never came into existence, as the content was totally deleted by him. See also the articles on Elvis and Me, the Memphis Mafia and related talk pages. It is very interesting that Karl Schalike is now providing an argument in support of the view that Adolf Hitler might be homosexual. However, these claims exist. Therefore, the material may be included in a separate article entitled Hitler's sexuality or Hitler's supposed homosexuality. Onefortyone 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Military Infantry Weapons

Hi, I've been putting together a List of infantry weapons and equipment of the Canadian military and I was hoping you could look it over to see what you can add and correct. Also, Thanks for participating in the Canadian Military History Task-force! Mike McGregor (Can) 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the pic on the Calgary Highlanders so that its not overlapping anything. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

Thank you for reverting the page on Battle of Vimy Ridge. I wanted to fix it, but do not know how. How do you revert an article? Also I agree about the preventing anonymous editing. Where would you post a proposal something like that for people to vote upon. Third, is there a way to block the vandl as punishment for his/her crime? (Steve 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the revert on the Vimy article vandalism. --Zegoma beach 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Pact

[4]: it did happen but only to so extremely small number of personel. A different story was Gulf War when countries, still officially in the pact, sent large contingents there. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Hey, I have posted a policy change proposal on the Wikipedia talk:Editing policy page. I would your opinion and all Wikipedia members with accounts. Please. (Steve 21:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for seconding my proposal. I have one more request. Tell all the legitimaite users you know about this proposal. The more of us that support it the more likely the policy will be implemented. Thaks (Steve 21:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 31% for major edits and 60% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis in the Holocaust

I'm putting this answer to your question on your talk page 'cause it's a bit long... sorry in advance if it's so too!

Truth be told, it was a Nazi thing that one can trace directly back to Hitler, who in turn adapted and developed the Nazi party as his instrument of political control in Germany. While no paper trail between AH and the camps exists (one can safely presume whatever existed of it burned in Berlin during April 1945) he was the absolute ruler of Germany for 12 years. Nothing on the industrial scale of the Holocaust could have happened without his keen personal interest and approval. It was implemented through the aparatus of the Nazi party, of which the SS was a professional military aspect.

This is the showstopper for me - if the SS reported directly to Hitler, was it in his status as head of the Party, or head of the nation? I would suspect the latter. My impression is that they moved well beyond the mere bodyguard to the leader of the Party role, to becoming an instrument of national policy - ie they ran the secret state police, the concentration camps (which initiated as a part of the German justice system) and a de facto fourth branch of the German military. I don't see what the NSDAP proper had to do with it - they no longer gave orders to the SS, the SS ran its own affairs, and any direction came directly from Hitler - so the link to the Party seems tenuous and coincidental, due to Hitler's dual role.

Most German people, while, like many other Europeans and Americans, casually anti-semitic, had no notion of the camps until it was far too late to do anything to stop it. Even women close to Hitler, notably Eva Braun and his secretary Traudl Junge, are believed to have been ignorant of the mass genocide. Some question this but the evidence is very strong and consistant. For example, a common misconception among many ordinary Germans was that Jews were being held in productive work camps (I've personally seen propaganda films along that line) or being deported.

This isn't related to my question re: the link between the Holocaust and the NSDAP.

The Nazis

Defined as what?

used German government and commercial resources in their "Final Solution." They also for example used IBM tabulating equipment. The German people were somewhat responsible for allowing Hitler into power and millions thought he was their national saviour but they didn't bargain for the Holocaust or the utter destruction of Germany that followed. The July 23 1944 bomb plot involved hundreds of high ranking German officers and other citizens,

It was July 20th - and I don't see what IBM or the plot have to do with linking the NSDAP to the Holocaust?

and thousands were ordered executed by Hitler when it failed. Fixing responsibility on Germany for the Holocaust is not 1:1 with, but somewhat analog to, assigning similar responsibility to IBM. Regardless of the complexities of the Nazi and German bureaucracies during that time Mr Hitler had, in effect, full executive, legislative and judicial control of the German nation. The responsibility is his and historians generally assign the NSDAP collective blame, since it contained the command apparatus and the steadfast leaders, "believers" and operatives who were aware of the genocide and worked to make it happen.

No it didn't - the majority of killings were done outside of Germany, and perhaps even by non-Germans. Those giving the orders were not Party members - Police Battalion 101, if it is an accurate example, contained only 25 percent NSDAP members. Even if one looked only at the senior leadership, isn't their membership in the NSDAP coincidental? Did the Party - ie Martin Bormann - give orders for the executions to take place? Or was it a matter of German national policy? I would say the latter.

Therefore IMHO it is inaccurate to attribute the Holocaust to Germany and spot on to refer to the Nazi party as the lawfully criminal element responsible under international law, with AH in the ultimate leadership position.

It was widely known among the Nazi leadership that "war crimes" trials would follow any surrender to the Allies, which is why so many committed suicide (never mind the utter brutality of the advancing Red Army). Let there be no doubt that this is why, when he understood by April 30 1945 that as the most important judicial candidate for charges on what we now call crimes against humanity, zero hope remained he would ever have a wit of control over his life again, he married Eva and the next day munched a cyanide ampule and blew his brains out all at once. The Holocaust and Nazism, along with a hideous distortion of German nationalism and culture, are Hitler's legacy to the world and it's entirely proper to label this disastrous and unique folly "Nazism" and assign responsibility to it. Wyss 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you addressed any of the points I was making. What specific links are there to tie the Party proper to the crimes, to the degree that calling the Holocaust a "Nazi" war crime is correct?

Replies

The Nazi party and Hitler were one and the same. As John Toland observed, within days of AH's death the party in effect vanished. We attribute the Holocaust to the Nazi party because that's where the knowledgable and responsible operatives were, as I explained.

But you didn't explain that; I asked you if their membership in the Party wasn't merely coincidental. I thought Bormann was the ultimate control of the Party, and that its political muscle, the SA, continued on to 1945 but without any real power - and certainly no ability to set foreign policy. Was it not the SS that was driving the various machineries of the Holocaust - the einsatzgruppen and the Totenkopf/camp staffs?

That's my point and Bormann implemented AH's will, not the will of the German people. Wyss 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SS was personally loyal to Hitler and since, for most historians the Nazi party was AH's personal political expression and implement, the SS is therefore referred to as a Nazi organisation.

The Army was personally loyal to Hitler also, but use of the phrase "Nazi Army" is only used by historians like Bartov trying to over-reach a point. Anyway, you say "most" historians. Can you name me one or two that didn't feel that way? I suspect I may agree with them and would be interested in reading more of what they have to say.

I can't name any historians who view the SS as discernably separate from the Nazi party (which is to say, AH). Visit any modern German schoolroom for mainstream historical views which orgainisationally do generally separate the Wehrmacht and navy from the Nazi party. Wyss 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These relationships in their detail may not be tidy enough for you but the ultimate responsibility was Hitler's and he was, in effect, Nazism and the motive force driving the Nazis. Wyss 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said Hitler was the German government also, which I think is fair. By that token, isn't it also fair to call the Holocaust a "German crime"? I think my question about Bormaan and the true Nazi Party apparatus is apt. You haven't singled out any of the actual Party machinery - the Gauleiters, the SA - and identified their responsibility. I don't accept that the SS was an instrument of "Party policy" since by 1942, there was only Hitler's policy - and as I pointed out, his dual role as both Party leader and national leader muddy the waters. The Holocaust is better defined as an instrument of national policy, IMO.Michael Dorosh 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AH in effect hijacked the German government and the German people for his own personal vision of world salvation. Since German national policy during that era was Hitler's personal policy, historians attribute the Holocaust to Hitler. Because the Nazi party was in essence the political implement of his will, historians use the Nazi party as a kind of shorthand to include, as I said, the Nazi leaders, "believers" and operatives who made it happen. Wyss 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you feel Wikipedia should adopt the same standards of lazy scholarship. Pity. :) Thanks for the replies.Michael Dorosh 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy's your term, not mine. Why are you so interested in deflecting blame for the Holocaust from the Nazi party, anyway? :) Wyss 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blame where blame is due, man. :-) I posted on the Holocaust talk page just now - if use of the word "Nazi" is also being use to refer to a specific period - ie "Nazi Germany" then it is an apt descriptor. Inelegant, but since it has evolved, I guess we go with it.Michael Dorosh 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I stumbled across this and can't help but leave just a few thoughts, if I may. It's not as clear cut as Wyss makes it to be. Her mistake, in my view, is putting all blame on a single man, Hiter, and explain everything through him. This is clearly false. Infact, the degree to which Hitler (or a single person that comes to head a govt. in power, or an organization) is blamed for what became history is a matter of legitimate debate. The Nazi state was massively authoritarian, but was less than ‘total’ in its control; Hitler has been described by some historians as a rather comparatively weak dictator. I don't share this view--he was more of a lazy one than weak. But, certainly blame for what took place is not so simplistic: many sectors in society had to be in place, and there were different driving forces that united to make the Nazi machine work, and produce its horrors--including the role of the middle class, existing culture and politics, and the other social forces in the society. How much weight you place on which factors determins where you stand in the spectrum of scholarly thought on the question. Take a look at the structuralists/functionalists (essentially a materialist) analysis/ school of historians, which has largely replaced the more idealist method Great Man theory of history outlook. This historiographical debate is often described as the Functionalism versus intentionalism. I was happy to see Wikipeadia already has an article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism Hope this helps. Giovanni33 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adolf Hitler books

The commercial link is to a specialized store that sells hard to find Adolf Hitler books. This is what the article is about and it aids readers find books. If it is a dealer someone does not care to buy from they do not have to buy from them. Please put the link back. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized indeed, with monies going straight to white supremacist hate groups. The owner of the site has long rants about white supremacy and has photographed himself in Hitler's uniform. I think a morally responsible person would not subsidize that site nor advertise for it. Michael Dorosh 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For correcting the spell-o on my page. Ah the evils of copy pasting stuff from another user :) -- Tawker 20:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy

Nice edits on the Normandy page.

I would like to call your attention to one small item. You wrote "Between the Americans of Patton's now-rampaging 3rd Army, which had activated on 1 August 1944, and the Commonwealth were the Free French,...."

The French 2eme DB was actually part of the US Third Army. They were reluctant about that at times, but that's where they were organizationally at that time. DMorpheus 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that; can you edit it on the page? Was trying to be elegant and breaking things down by sector - if only armies on the move did things as neatly and orderly as an historian 60 years later...Michael Dorosh 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on the SS Bde abbreviation! I didn't know that & thought the reference to 1 SS brigade may have been altered by someone posting one of those sneaky vandalism edits.--Lepeu1999 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. Stacey

Removed because its text and references are directly copied from the web site quoted. Thank you.--File Éireann 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was MY website I quoted. I authorize Wikepedia to use it. Please replace it.Michael Dorosh 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The page is now restored to the state it was in immediately before deletion. You will need to show that the page was written by you. Follow the instructions given in the copyvio notice. Thank you.--File Éireann 21:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the thread I have started at your web site forum. That should be adequate confirmation.--File Éireann 23:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoneMichael Dorosh 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tagging the page with a copyvio box, but I didn't know you was admin at that page. It's just that Wiki unfortunately sees so many copy vio's so we have to be pretty harsh. --Snailwalker | talk 17:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"2-bar chevron"?

Nevah hoid of it. I don't ever recall seeing this term in CF Dress Instructions, or in any book on rank insignia; everything I have ever read on the subject (while I admit is not exhaustive) merely states the number of chevrons for a particular rank. Can you tell me where you encountered this term? SigPig 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• British Army Uniforms and Insignia of World War Two, Brian L. Davis, p. 22
• War Dress Regulations for the Canadian Army, 1943
• Dressed To Kill: Canadian Army Uniforms of the Second World War, Michael Dorosh

Well, ok, you can discount the last one since I wrote it but the other two are legit. ;) If the Canadian Forces don't use the term anymore, well, that's intellectual laziness on their part. Corporate memory in Canada is for shit. When those 4 Canadians in Afghanistan got killed, CTV declared it the worst case of fratricide in Canadian military history - completely forgetting that the 3rd Canadian Division got carpet bombed in Normandy by Allied 4 engine aircraft!

Davis quotes directly from ACIs (Army Council Instructions). I have original wartime documents in my possession that show Canadians followed the ACIs very carefully; they formed the research for my third book on Canadian uniforms and insignia which goes to press this year. Michael Dorosh 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just digging through my original documents - a draft copy of the War Dress Regs mentions "Chevrons of rank or appointment will be worn point downwards in the case of 1, 2 and 3 bar chevrons..."Michael Dorosh 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DSO Recipients

Hi Michael, sorry I didn't see your comment on the category talk page earlier. I appreciate this medal was given to a fair few people but I doubt the 'pedia will ever list all of them so I don't seem the harm in including those with articles that were awarded it(!?). Thanks Craigy (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:12SSHJPOWAbused.jpg

Thanks for updating this, must admit I hacked the photo credit just to get away from the biased original. Know of any way to change the title of the jpg file? Seems too biased as is. Any chance you might answer via my talk page, I can find that much easier as I'm a relative noob. PhilipPage 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

Thanks for the notice. I've corrected the mistake on Image:The Second Battle of Ypres.jpg. Albrecht 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuffink

Jesus, Michael, you're more active on this thing than I am... I'll be damned. Keep up the good work. Elijahmeeks 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup Reminder

The first Wikipedia Meetup in Calgary is this Monday, May 15, starting at 5pm(ish) at the Good Earth Café in Connaught (1502 - 11 Street SW; Just down from 17 Avenue on 11 Street). —GrantNeufeld 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Soldiers

Hi Michael, A Cal High Eh? Good on ya! Nice to see other Canadian Soldiers around. Thanks for your contributions to the Goddard artical. I am trying to write an artical for the liberation of Arnhem by our troops. Mind if I run it by you? You may have a few ideas.

Motorfix 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help. Michael Dorosh 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my sandbox for the ongoing battle. Motorfix 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved from my sandbox to a new artical Liberation of Arnhem Motorfix 17:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt's authorization to fire?

You removed the information that Hary (sic) "Psycho" Schmidt was authorized to fire. Where did you get this info. It's clear from the taped conversation with his air controller that Schmidt requested permission to fire, was told to hold his fire, and then said, "I am exercising my inherent right to self defense" and dropped his bomb anyway. -- Geo Swan 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the book "FRIENDLY FIRE" - I'll find the relevant quote and add it to the page. It wasn't as clear cut as the newspapers reported. Thanks for reminding me of this. On the other hand, if you have an actual quote that supports your view, it would be wise to include it in the article.Michael Dorosh 02:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Mission

I just read your profile...very neat that you wrote a mission for the CMBB spec edition. I own both it and CMBO. Two of my favorite games. Which mission did you write? Have you played the Arnhem capaign in CMBO? Thanks for th review on my Arnhem artical. CheerS! Motorfix 03:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steele (Paratrooper)

Thanks for your help with this article. I am sorry the suggestion to merge this into the Normandy article upset you. Now that you have pointed it out, I see why this was not the best solution. The John Steele article had very little content, I assumed there was a section of the Normandy article that would list some of the soldiers. I did not feel comfortable making the edit. My main goal was to bring attention to a neglected article and that has been accomplished. Thanks for fixing it up. Manufracture 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A piece of cake

Nice catch rv'ing the Dieppe article.(I can't stand original research and uncited blurbs) I keep many Canadian military pages on my VandalProof watchlist and I see your username pop up quite frequently. The "piece of cake" comment intrigued me enough to do a quick Google hunt for it and you were quite correct...according to this page it was a Canadian general's comment. Not sure of the credibilty of the author but it's an interesting little read.(if you have time) Anyhow...Cheers and take care! Anger22 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Anger22. And for your interest in Canadian military stuff. Roberts denies having said it, but still got cake in the mail from POWs during the war, and ex-POWs after the war. There is a great interview with him on the Dieppe miniseries DVD. Michael Dorosh 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I will try and find time to watch that(if I can find it). My interest in Canadian military articles is homegrown. My great uncle was killed in WWI and my wife's father was seriously wounded at Ortona. The Canadian military articles are all well done. It's a worth while project. Cheers! Anger22 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Please re-wikify the dates, for preferences. Every user can customise their dates in their preferences. Only wikified dates are automatically changed to suit users' preferences. Cheers. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:03 UTC (2006-06-06)

For more info on dates wikification for preferences: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day NSLE _(T+C) at 04:05 UTC (2006-06-06)

Hmm, never read that before - other editors have considered wikifying every date as distracting; doesn't seem to be commonly done in the articles I've been working in. My bad. :-) Michael Dorosh 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarWiki

(Sorry if this seems like spamming.) Hey, if you like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history then you might like war.wikia.com where we need people (we have only 16 users) to write anything about war--fictional (i.e. Star Wars, LOTR) or real (i.e. WWII, American Civil War). Thank you! the_ed17 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed Goldfinger Bond photo

You're right-- the part looks best on the left. And the coat goes left over right (the way all men's coats do) in the image with the carnation on Bond's left. I had that wrong.

However, there's just one problem: though the image is now correct in the JPG, the reversed image still shows when that JPG is called for in the article, and thus in the article. How is that possible?? If you click on it, you get the corrected flipped one. ???? Sbharris 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably your cache - hit refresh and see if that works?Michael Dorosh 17:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That did it. Neat trick. First time I've ever had to "use" that feature. Wonder what other odd stuff I've been struggling with as a result? :(. Gracias. Sbharris 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Blitzkrieg

Your recent edit to Blitzkrieg was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 04:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Removal of fair use images

I reverted your addition to User:Durin/Removal of fair use images. You were invited to comment on the RfC and despite several invitations chose not to do so. Since then, you have taken multiple opportunities to attempt to use other vehicles to voice displeasure over my methods. I have before asked you to stop doing this and use appropriate forums. The RfC was a good faith effort to gauge community consensus. It was an open forum where you could have made a difference in the outcome of the consensus. You chose not to do so. While I certainly am not asking you to change your opinion on this matter, I am most definitely asking you to stop using inappropriate forums for voicing your displeasure. What you are doing is, in my opinion, a form of wiki-stalking. Thank you, --Durin 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My words this afternoon were unwarranted. BabuBhatt 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both got to where we wanted to be in the end; good work on the edit.Michael Dorosh 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canalizing

Yes, canalizing is a word commonly used to mean restricting an attacking enemy's movement to some preferred area. For example, minefields and obstacles can be used to canalize an attack into a densly-defended kill zone. The attacker is forced to choose between a slow and probably costly minefield-clearing operation or a fast but perhaps suicidal attack into your kill zone. DMorpheus 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah....wasn't sure if I had seen it before. Google gives 38,000 hits on canalizing and 10,000,000 on channeling, so at least my suspicion about common use seems to bear fruit, with the imperfect "google rule" anyway. At any rate, thanks for the info. My real concern was with the use of doctrine vs. tactics; wasn't sure what your take on that might be? I'm not convinced my word is superior to yours but thought I'd throw it in there. We can discuss further on the Blitzkrieg talk page if you feel the need?Michael Dorosh 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite - who is Newbie Bill?

Is there any way to access his user history after he's been banned? Now I'm curious who he might have been.Michael Dorosh 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is Conts 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of {{stub}} is no longer recommended

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar?

Hi, I noticed I had a Barnstar since this morning.

You put it there I assume. Uhm, just to level, I wasn't really being greedy and hunting for a barnstar actually, and I just wanted to know what kind of authority it takes before you can hand them out.

I haven't really done that much YET here actually.

Should the barnstar be on my talk or on my evilbu page?

Evilbu 08:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've never gotten one either. LOL. Michael Dorosh 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zap!

I was working on 20th Maine and suddenly: Zap! It got edited right out from under me by you! At that moment I had been contemplating the headings and such that the article needed when you took it over! LOL! I love how this Wikipedia works. Better edit fast or someone else is going to do it first! Good work on the reorg btw. Mike 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - if you see other changes to make to that article, by all means, go for it!Michael Dorosh 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime military history task force

Just wanted to inform you that the Maritime warfare history task force has been created :) Inge 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwood

Your recent edits ot Goodwood omit some key information that used to be in there. Mind if I put it back? DMorpheus 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, but I thought everything I excised was unsourced. Looking forward to your edits. I found the intro with the question marks a bit jarring and unencyclopedic, then got a bit carried away from there. :-) Michael Dorosh 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper's church

Okay. I'm getting really pissed off here. I have provided a citation for this repeatedly and still people like you are removing with idiotic explanation like "remove unsourced statements per talk page". Of course, its not unsourced, and you didn't actually provide any explanation on the talk page, so that sentence is bunk. I will say this only one more time: STOP IT. He used to belong the United Church, now he doesn't. That might not fit your agenda, but that's just tough. Carolynparrishfan 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Ironcorporal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironcorporal.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:

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War comics

Glad to help — it's a long-overdue and very welcome article — and my goodness, that was a quick reply! Looking forward to working with you in the ComicsProject! -- Tenebrae 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocked

I have revoked the editing privileges for this account after this edit following clear instructions in both that article's edit summary history and on the article Talk page that unfree image cleanup should not be reverted. Per User:Jimbo Wales' encouragement to be strict about fair use abuse, this account should remain blocked until the user commits to not interfering with unfree image cleanup. One such a commitment is received, any admin should return editing privileges immediately. Jkelly 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) unblock[reply]

Okay, consider myself committed.Michael Dorosh 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the account. Jkelly 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jkelly shouldn't have blocked you over this. First off, the photo is a copyrighted by the Canadian government and is the official picture of the Canadian prime minister. A strong claim could have been made that the use of this photo to illustrate an article about the prime minister is valid under fair use. In short, this wasn't a nonsense fair use claim and Jkelly should not have blocked you for disagreeing with him/her over it. In addition, Jkelly should not have blocked you over an editorial dispute Jkelly was involved in. That is against Wikipedia guidelines. Just wanted you to know this.--Alabamaboy 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Alabamaboy; I consider the current picture there an act of vandalism, frankly, and I will be requesting further action be taken.Michael Dorosh 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the above at WP:AN. I encourage all parties to review our fair use policy. Jkelly 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE MET THE OUTLINED CONDITIONS FOR UNBLOCKING AND AM REQUESTING YOU EITHER UNBLOCK ME OR EXPLAIN WHY I AM BEING BLOCKED. I CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION THERE WHILE BLOCKED. THANK YOUMichael Dorosh 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, thank you for correcting my spelling. Jkelly 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why blocked again?

Huh?? why am I blocked again. I said I committed myself to not changing any more pictures - however, I am going to pursue further action regarding this block. That's my right. Please unblock as I have met your conditions.Michael Dorosh 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be fully unblocked now. I would encourage you to be civil and polite in any further action you choose to pursue. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always! Thanks. Michael Dorosh 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Check your block log. There aren't any autoblocks for me to lift in my logs. Jkelly 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why blocked again?

Huh?? why am I blocked again. I said I committed myself to not changing any more pictures - however, I am going to pursue further action regarding this block. That's my right. Please unblock as I have met your conditions.Michael Dorosh 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be fully unblocked now. I would encourage you to be civil and polite in any further action you choose to pursue. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always! Thanks. Michael Dorosh 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Check your block log. There aren't any autoblocks for me to lift in my logs. Jkelly 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any autoblocks wouldn't show up in your logs, only in the main IP blocklist. Maybe that was the source of the confusion? Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. Jkelly

Consensus seems to be that I was too quick to block you. Please accept my apologies for blocking you without an individual warning; it is true that I had no way of knowing whether you had read the edit summaries at Stephen Harper or my note at Talk:Stephen Harper, and I should have taken that into consideration. Jkelly 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me also thank you for being gracious about it. Jkelly 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Durning

I added some references. I am sure they won't be good enough for you either. Sorry to disappoint you, but not all Americans are liars and cheats. Also, what exactly is your issue with his Broadway credits? That can be easily verified on IBDB.com or TonyAwards.com --rogerd 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I read the references and they state specifically he was not in the infantry on D-Day, but was already in the artillery. The Infantry Regiment he was drafted into was not part of the 1st Division. I've changed the article accordingly. Good work finding sources.Michael Dorosh 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I was a little paranoid. You had added a {{citation needed}} after the mention of his 1990 Tony Award [5]. I don't understand the controversy about that. It is easily verified on IBDB.com or TonyAwards.com (IBDB.com does not allow the public to post like IMDB does) --rogerd 04:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it - but you need to put the citation on the page. You'll have to excuse me for appearing pedantic - I come from a History degree background, and when writing history papers, one always footnotes everything. It is also the wikipedia standard, so I'm getting used to seeing references. Again, good job finding the info on his war service.Michael Dorosh 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many award recipients (see Cynthia Nixon, Helen Hayes, Richard Griffiths and Nathan Lane and other more obscure actors) are credited with Tony Awards in wikipedia without a reference. If each little fact, especially ones as well known as awards had to be referenced, it would take more space than the article. For instance, it mentions that he is trained in classical dance without a reference. Does that mean it should be removed? I'm sorry, but I am not going to take the time to track that one down. Or his role in The Sting. I saw the film, and remember his role. Does that need to be referenced, too? Where does it end? --rogerd 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy at Talk:Stephen Harper

Are you at all interested in explaining why it is a bad analogy? Jkelly 05:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion, you can always rewrite copy, and you can take an article online and reword it so it become original. But how the heck do you take a photograph and do the same thing? I could do a charcoal sketch of that portrait photo, but it doesn't have the same impact. On the other hand, I can reword an article and it is just as effective. If that makes sense? For example, I could reword your post above, make it into something completely original with the same impact, and there is no problem. You can't do that with a photo.

Example: "If you have the interest, could you perhaps delineate why this analogy is not a good one?"

You see what I've done? I completely reworded your sentence, but made it original and unique to me while still having the same effect. How does one do that with a photograph?Michael Dorosh 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images can also be edited. Compare Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg with . The latter shouldn't be in PNG format, but, regardless, we expect images to be edited; it is why we insist that media be licensed to allow derivatives. I recommend GIMP as an free software movement image editor. Jkelly 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your uploading of public domain image(s)

Hi, thanks for uploading the PD image. Please consider uploading new free images to Commons. This allows all language Wikipedias to share them. Any Paul Martin images should be placed in Commons:Category:Paul Martin. A similiar category (or gallery/article) should exist for other prime ministers. Use of Commons helps avoids redundant uploads and storage. --Rob 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google image

Did you not notice that there is no image in the Google template, but it is just coloured text. -- Jeff3000 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, if you look at my history (probably 6 months ago), I actually was quite an advocate of removing fair-use images from Template and User space. I took down most of the fair use Sports logos off the Sports templates. -- Jeff3000 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the complete the discussion on the Talk page of the Google template, you will see that the resulting text is "close enough" to warrant trademark infringement. If you're going to apply a policy, you should do it universally; to not do so is hypocrisy, which I realize is not your intent.Michael Dorosh 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ike: Countdown to D-Day

You're right. My bad. -Proteus71 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No bad, just honest mistake. :-) Michael Dorosh 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Harper Picture Fiasco

Hi Michael, I have some people looking for a free layton photo as you requested. No need for the $10 though. BUWAHAHAHAHA. In all seriousness, I am working on getting something done in terms of a free use Harper image that looks good enough for use...something taken from a press conference or something. I hope to have one soon, and hopefully that will put an end to this stupidity. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - many thanks!Michael Dorosh 01:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Subheadings in AfD debates

I know it makes a lot of sense to do so, but please don't add subheadings to AfD listings as it mucks the entire page up. BigHaz 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that - I wasn't aware that the discussions actually appear on other pages as well.Michael Dorosh 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

Why did you delete my coment just now? Not much of a reply. -- Jason Palpatine 03:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling you're simply trolling and therefore have nothing to say to you on my Talk page. I've made my case at the page in question, it's up to the admin now. Besides which, your "comment" was juvenile. I had a hard time believing you seriously expected a reply.Michael Dorosh 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling"? What's that? Sorry, but you lost me there. I sometimes just break the ice with a simple remark -- I learned from past experience that people here don't seem to like the opposite. My comment on the PoyA talk page summs it up -- but I didn't see a reply so I thought I was being ignored. I officially consider the matter dead as of now. But I thought image linking in an article was frowned upon here.

Just looked it up. Oooops. Sorry. I meant no offense. H-A-N-D

-- Jason Palpatine 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test

Michael Dorosh^Talk 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]