User talk:Oberiko/2004

Spurious relationship

Why did you vote to delete spurious relationship? It's a very nicely written article on a topic that is important in scientific inference, even if it is a stub. Michael Hardy 01:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I voted to delete that because, IMO, it looks like it could be fit into the wiktionary.

Abyssinia Crisis

I guess you are about to continue your work on the article on the Abyssinia crisis? At the moment, it looks as if you were disturbed in the midsth of your work.
--Ruhrjung 14:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be resuming that shortly. I was doing a major overhaul to have it line up with the timeline of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Oberiko 16:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good, very good! Is there any specific reason why to put the link to the war under See also instead of referring to it from the text?
--Ruhrjung 17:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

None really, I probably should integrate them. I'll do that now. Oberiko 18:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Go to the page history, select the non-vandal version, edit that, and save it, without change. :) Dysprosia 02:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Oberiko 02:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please note that blanking a page does not delete it. If you want Android 16 gone, then please list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Jia ng 00:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alien

Another Alien fan, huh? :) Fredrik 18:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I rather like the whole AvP mythos.

I believe the USCM and their weapons could perfectly well be listed on the same page. Fredrik 18:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I originally had them on the same page but it looked like it was getting a bit cumbersome. Especially when both the table and descriptions are up. Oberiko 03:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German ship prefixes

On "German battleship Bismarck" vs "KM Bismarck", please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and discuss there before changing all the carefully laid-out articles. If you have sources that indicate "KM" was the common name, we'd like to hear about them - our previous research indicates that the WWII KM did not use prefixes in the way that we use HMS or USS, and it would be inappropriate to make up something and put it forth as authoritative. Stan 06:19, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Really? My apologies then. When doing a GS I came up with over a hundred results for KM Bismarck and assumed that it was the official (if oft unused) designation. I can reset the article and it's links if that's not the case.

It can be tricky to use the "net of a million lies" for research - people often propagate misconceptions, and it's usually a good idea to google several different ways to gauge what's common and what's not. For instance, 'German battleship Bismarck' gets over 12,000 hits (with the very detailed kbismarck.com at the top, and WP right after, yay), while 'German battleship "KM Bismarck"' gets just 78 of those, and of those hits is a discussion of this very topic at Talk:Battleship. :-) If you haven't seen it, ship prefix summarizes what we've been able to put together on prefixes. Stan 13:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sexton (artillery)

The Canadian spelling is front line not frontline. Since this article is about a Canadian vehicle, the local spelling takes priority. GreatWhiteNortherner 23:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I can defer to that. Oberiko 23:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

World War II German fighter aircraft & World War II British fighter aircraft

Empty. Huh? Burgundavia 01:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I forgot the word "Category" when making some links. Hence, I created a normal page instead of a category page. Oberiko 10:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

German jet aircraft

Hi, I’ve answered your question on my talk page, I hope it cleared up the stuff. --GeneralPatton 19:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You didn't have to remove "World War II German jet fighter aircraft" from the Heinkel He 162 page, the Volksjäger was a true and pure fighter/interceptor. And Me-262 certainly was superior in the fighter role than all the dedicated fighters of the era, the catch is that it was not just a fighter, but a true multi-role aircraft, the like we have now. --GeneralPatton 19:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

administrator nomination

Hi, because of your great work on the WWII stuff, I’ve nominated you for an administrator, you can accept or reject the nomination by going to RfA. GeneralPatton 23:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Patton. I'll go there now. Oberiko 10:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Power Rangers

Thanks for adding the categories to Power Rangers movies, etc. I was picking the brains of my friend's 6-year-old son for the edits I made today! --Uncle Ed 18:02, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Saw it on a routine check of recent changes and noticied that an article with that many iLinks definitely needed a category. Oberiko 18:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela . 23:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy -- waiting period

Hi Oberiko, I see you've deleted some pages lately that are listed on vfd. It looks like some of them have been deleted before the standard 5 day waiting period was over. Even though all votes are for deletion, we usually let an article sit on vfd the whole 5 days. The exceptions are speed deletes which are dealt with via the speed delete policy. I think deleting articles before the waiting period is over will ruffle some feathers and probably it's best to avoid distractions of that kind. I usually work on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old list myself -- these are all past the 5 day wait. Hope this helps, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It does. My apologies, I'll stick to the old ones. Oberiko 19:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi, can you slow down on the blocking please. Users such as 212.30.5.227 who made just one test edit should get a {{test}} message on their talk page directing them to the sandbox rather than being blocked without warning. I can't see why you blocked 64.230.31.171 as he seems to have done nothing other than leave a message on a talk page, and 209.62.234.167 has made one edit, yet you blocked him for "large scale blanking". You should also be aware that user 24.4.202.208 has filed a complaint against you on the wikien-l mailing list. The three revert rule is not sufficiently supported by the community to be enforced by blocking users, and I can't disagree with this user's complaint that "Strike 3 bucko" is not an appropriate explanation of why he was blocked. Angela . 13:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alright, guess I was just a bit peeved that he continued to insert questionable material after warnings by myself and others. The large scale blanking was the removal of a large portion of the Holocaust page IIRC. But I'll tone it down and only block those with obvious, malicious vandalism from now on then. Oberiko 22:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's best to assume good faith with newbies rather than think they are being malicious. They might not know about the "3 revert rule" or even the NPOV policy, so just try to explain this before threatening them with blocking. You might be interested in the vote at Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version/Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars where there is not yet any agreement about the three revert idea. Angela . 01:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Oberiko. Note that adding material that is perceived as being biased is not considered vandalism (and thus should not result in arbitrary blocks by sysops). See wikipedia:blocking policy, wikipedia:dealing with vandalism. Glad to hear you'll be sticking to our policies in the future. Martin 22:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft categorisation

Hi Oberiko - apologies for shifting some of the categories too hastily. I didn't initially realise that your categories were as established as they were - as soon as I did, I changed from moving articles to "Bomber aircraft" to adding them to "Bomber aircraft" as well.

At the moment, I'm working on a top-down set of categories for all the aircraft articles, so for now, can we please leave aircraft in both a general category ("Bomber aircraft") and a very specific category ("World War II French medium bombers")?

As usual with categorisation, the more specific the categories become, the more "grey areas" crop up around their edges - yes, the B-17 was a "World War II American heavy bomber", but it was also used outside World War II, and by air arms other than those of the US.

I'll re-add the general categories to the articles that you removed them from today, and I'll start adding specific WWII categories to those WWII aircraft that I encounter as I continue categorising today.

Cheers --Rlandmann 00:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've also added a new category for Korean War aircraft and am starting to populate it... Also, were you planning on including experimental aircraft in your schema? Case in point - the Campini Caproni CC.2 - do you want to add a category for "World War II Italian experimental aircraft"? --Rlandmann 01:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know that in general we prefer to restrict the "vertical" element of categories. However, too specific subcategories also present problems. For example: the P-51 could be categorised as

World War II American fighters World War II American ground attack aircraft Korean War American fighters Korean War American ground attack aircraft American fighters of the 1950s World War II RAF fighters World War II RAAF fighters World War II RCAF fighters World War II SAAF fighters World War II RNZAF fighters Korean War RAAF ground attack aircraft War of Independence IAF aircraft Dominican Air Force fighters Swedish Air Force fighters

...etc etc etc

Which is why I still think that a very general aircraft category is useful, alongside a couple of obvious subcategories. --Rlandmann 01:42, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Point taken - but of course the same argument about allowing X because of allowing Y applies to (too-)narrow subcategories too, as I indicated above. A nice example - I've just categorised the P-36 Hawk as a World War II American fighter, but as we both know - although an American designed and built aircraft, most of its action happened in foreign hands...

At the moment, the vast bulk of aircraft aren't in *any* category. My short-term goal is to slot them all into a broad category according to basic role. From there, it should be clearer what sub-categories are going to make most sense, and of course, will be trivial to track down the articles to re-categorise them. --Rlandmann 02:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK - please just bear with me a few days till I get through this job. For now, I'll continue both broad- and narrow- categorisation. Aircraft categorisation generally falls into three dimensions: role, nationality, and era. Personally, I'd like to see the era component based on date of first flight (as the "great equaller" of any aircraft chronology), but know that this doesn't sit well with your "World War II equipment" schema. Eventually, B-17 might sit in both "World War II American heavy bombers" and "American bomber aircraft, 1930-1940"... --Rlandmann 02:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Date spans - don't quite know what the best span would be yet, but decade seems about right. I guess it should of course be 1930-1939 (not 1940). Hopefully this will be clearer after the first rough sort.

Another concern I have is with the specificity of some of the current subcategories - again as you know, there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes a "medium" bomber from nation to nation and era to era. To reflect the schema already in place, I've also added Torpedo Bomber and Dive Bomber (at least these have functional differences, compared to say, "light bomber" and "medium bomber")... I personally wouldn't use light/medium/heavy distinctions, although tactical/strategic might make sense. --Rlandmann 02:48, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft subcategories again

Hi - can you please either hold off another couple of days to let me finish a first pass over the aircraft subcategories, or try to create categories consistent with what I've been doing across the rest of the aircraft articles? I'm asking this not because I think "my" categorisation schema is necessarily any better than other possibilities, but so that we at least have the articles sorted consistently, at which point it will be easy to re-sort or recategorise in some other logical and consistent manner if necessary....

I had hoped to have been finished by now, but I've had a few days of real life intrusion on my wiki activities.

The full tree expands out as:

British fighter aircraft 1930-1939

+British fighter aircraft

+British military aircraft

+British aircraft

+Aircraft

+United Kingdom

+Military aircraft

+Aircraft

+Military equipment

+British military aircraft 1930-1939

+British military aircraft (as above)

+Military aircraft 1930-1939

+Military aircraft (as above)

+Aircraft 1930-1939

+Aircraft

+1930s

+Fighter aircraft 1930-1939

+Fighter aircraft (as above)

+Aircraft 1930-1939 (as above)

Note how each branch reaches Category:Aircraft in the same tier.

I also think it's a pity that you seem to have abandoned the World War II categories - I thought this worked out as a useful and interesting not-quite-parallel way of sorting them. It would have meant that users could have approached the article as an "aircraft" if that's where their interests lay (like me!) or as an artefact of WWII...

Finally, I think that trying to include multiple categories to indicate an aircraft's whole service history is impractical because of the "greyness" of that idea. If multiple categories are going to be included, I think it would make more sense to do so on the basis of airframe production, which has a far more definite end-point. But we can discuss this later.

Cheers --Rlandmann 23:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check out...

...what I wrote at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Template messages. I've showed this to several other Wikipedians, but no one has responded. Any objections to what that says?? 66.245.23.108 00:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Phil Ineson

Phil Ineson is not a speedy deletions — please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you like you may list the page on Votes for deletion.

I was under the impression that vanity pages counted. Alright, I'll go through the votes.

German Military Glossary

Hi, I've noticed you really like Nazi-era military stuff. I am thinking about doing a Glossary of WWII German military terms and am looking for feedback/ideas on the idea. There is an article on Glossary of the Third Reich, but I'm not sure whether to mix it with military terms or to do a new section or a new article. Anyway, any comment would be appreciated. There are other glossaries at [Category:Lists of terms]. --DanielCD 19:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Lauched site here: Glossary of German WWII military terms. I had been preparing the list for a while. Feel free to add in anytime. --DanielCD 01:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey I noticed your name at a Blitzkrieg game site and was wondering if you play that game. It's my favorite. Also: did you get a chance to look at the German WWII military glossary? I was hoping I could get someone who was into WWII stuff to give it a look over. --DanielCD 15:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did look over the glossary and it looks quite impressive, certainly many more terms then I myself am familiar with. The only suggestion I can make would be additional internal links to ease naviagation. I don't really play that game very much, as there are a few small but nagging issues I have with it. Most my time on their forums is spent trying to persuade them to "fix" them for the upcoming sequel. Oberiko 02:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories WWII

You wrote:
Howdy Der Eberswalder. When you categorize articles, try to make sure that you're not multi-tier catagorizing. Some of the articles you gave the category "World War II" to are already categorized under sub-categories of it. Oberiko 02:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about it but am not yet sure what is better. It has pros and cons. Multi-tier categorizing has the advantage that things can be found in different levels without going to the tiniest twig but the disadvantage that the higher levels may have to many entries. I will refrain from the WWII category for a while until this is sorted out. Der Eberswalder 08:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"to some" this is...

Wouldn't it be true to say that "to Russians", or "to most Russians", the Continuation War is considered as one of the theaters on this front?

I am not too fond of the evading usage of weasel words. ;-))

Cheers!

--Ruhrjung 17:52, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

I'm aware that some Russians consider it one of the fronts in their conflict. What I'm not sure of is how many others (Germans, Fins etc.) also consider it just a front vs. a seperate conflict. Unless I have evidence to include or exclude, I'd rather leave it generic. Oberiko 17:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Ex-)East Germans usually do.
(Ex-)West Germans don't know or don't care.
German historicists may stress both the great independence Finland's government exercized vis-à-vis their German well-doers and the fact that the northern de-populated half of Finland was made virtually a German military district. Historicists may have different views on whether the Soviet Union would have struck against a Finland that had kept a greater distance to the Wehrmacht (and a closer relationship with the Socialists in Stockholm), but beside what-if history, that's irrelevant. Finland had cosied up with Germany to get one bully's protection against the other, and Finland withdrew independently after that reason was obsoleted. In other words: not really, only sort-of. :-)
Finns don't really. Or rather: If they are well educated and say "The Great Patriotic War" they include the Continuation War, but if they say "The Continuation War" they think of that as a Russo-Finnish conflict that at least theoretically could have been avoided until the Soviet attack some week(s) after Germany's assault on Russia, and as a conflict that was ended separately as soon as the surrounding conditions (the Wehrmacht) permitted.
Swedes and Danes usually don't. (I don't know about Norwegians.)
Other peoples don't care. Their governments might have, at the time, but it's of no significance for them.

My impression is that English textbooks on history may, or may not. ...probably chiefly depending on whether they lean on Russian-connected or Finland-connected sources.

Well, you do as you wish, of course. I don't think I am tempted to change your wording. ...although I don't like it. :-)

--Ruhrjung 18:25, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Seems like the best solution would be to write a section within the main article to describe the situation on this. Oberiko 01:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Koopa Kids

I see that a few days ago you deleted several of the Koopa Kids. The articles about them that you deleted had valid and very useful information. The Koopa Kids are Nintendo characters and had articles in the wiki until you deleted them. Please restore all of the files with the name "Koopa" in the title that you deleted. Marcus2 18:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xenomorph

I support your move to transform Xenomorph into a general alien page - but I am at a lost where all the Aliens info would move. I'm not even sure "Xenomorph" is the official name, or if some sci-fi geek without a brain just automatically assumed it was. I just assumed it might be correct because a few others had gone along with it. Talk to me.--ZayZayEM 00:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the use of morph in this word. It is -morph as in a suffix (shape), not as the verb (to change shape). Xenomorph basically means "alien shaped". A megamorph would be really big, while a micromorph would be really small. (I can't think of too may prefixes to -shape at the moment). A polymorph is an entitity capable of morphing as it possesses many shapes - or has multi-faceted shape (polymorphic nuclei, sexual dimorphism etc.)

My point was that all non-humanoid aliens would technically be Xenomorphs as they would be shaped like aliens; or at a stretch all aliens without a Terran (biological?) equivalent – I'd still call a toaster with the legs of an octopus and 3 cobs of corn for miscellaneous appendages a xenomorph (or just close my eyes, curl up and hope it goes away)--ZayZayEM 13:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably a main reason we need pictures. All aliens in the series (except the original, which was a giant-black man in a suit, and hardly seen in full anyway) look basically like this [1] (you can go to Google Image Search = Xenomorph for more examples). however depending on the host from which the are incubated within, they may have slightly different traits. The dog alien in Alien3 was smaller, more 'bouncier', and had a more pronounced tail. In the action-figure series there were small winged "bat-aliens", a larger winged "bat-queen", stocky cow aliens (with horns I believe). An elephant xenomorph could conceivably have a trunk, or at least be gianormous with stocky legs. The actual shape of the mature organism is stuck for life though.--ZayZayEM 13:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tanks of World War II

Hi,

I've put a proposal up about this subject on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weaponry page. Please take a look --Martin Wisse 05:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being anti-Israel

What a witch hunt. --Alberuni 19:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my page where you state: "There's nothing wrong with being anti-Israel", I would soundly disagree.

If you are openly anti-something, I do not believe you can write a non-biased article which pertains to that topic. Oberiko 19:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can be openly anti-Israel on Talk pages and still write NPOV articles. Would you claim that someone who is openly pro-Israel cannot write an unbiased article? Anyway, NPOV is about presenting alternative points of view. Everyone recognizes that complete objectivity is impossible. Read Wikipedia:NPOV. What you are actually doing is censoring editors for holding political points of view with which you disagree - because of your own POV. Hence, a witch hunt. --Alberuni 19:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My POV? And what would that be? You've already decided, quite openly, that Israel is "wrong" in the current political situations. How could you write a fair, NPOV article with a mindframe like that? NPOV is about neutrality, and, if especially controverisal, both sides being presented equally under so-labelled headings. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not propoganistic.

And yes, I would say that someone who is openly pro-Israel likely also couldn't write a fair article on the situation either. I know that complete NPOV is impossible, but there are certainly larger margins then others. One more question though. How does pointing out an open bias of yours make this a witch-hunt? Oberiko 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The RfC in which you correctly pointed out my anti-Israeli position and improperly accused me of anti-Semitism was not about my political opinions or "open bias". It was about Jayjg's accusations of incivility. You were only supposed to comment on the civility or lack thereof. Instead, you (and others) took it upon yourself to judge my political opinions as "incorrect" - hence, the witch hunt. Yes, I believe a Jewish state in Palestine that discriminates against non-Jews in their own land is a nightmare racist state that must be, and will be, reformed or destroyed - just like the racist regimes in South Africa and Nazi Germany were destroyed and those nations brought into the civilized world. Those beliefs (my "open bias") don't prevent me from writing objective articles on these subjects and many others. The RfC wasn't about my objectivity. It was about my admittedly harsh comments against those with pro-Israeli POVs who push them into articles as if they are objective facts. There are many good pro-Israeli editors who write objectively. There are some who insert their biases into their writing and that's what I oppose. It is not reasonable (nor democratic) to exclude people because of their political opinions. It is reasonable to criticize people for writing biased articles. You accused me of violating some standard regarding Israel that you have established and that reflects your own POV. You apparently do not oppose Israeli military oppression and discrimination against people just because they are not Jewish. That is your POV. Because my POV is different, you attacked my political position on an RfC that had no bearing on the subject. If you recognize your mistake, you are free to strike or edit your entry. I don't really care either way. --Alberuni 20:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reformed or destroyed? You're even more biased then I had originally assumed. And where have I actually stated my own political beliefs? I would condemn just as quickly someone who wrote about "Terrorist Palestinians" (If you'll note, one of my more recent contributions was to eliminate that and refer to their various militias on a specific List of Palestinian militant groups page) as I would about "Oppresive Israelies". It actually is possible for some people to look at the situation without having to take one of the extremist points of view.

And your bias was coming into it. It was apparant that every "negative" thing being written about the Palestinians, Arafat etc., even those with factual basis, you were, IMO, attempting to supress. Oberiko 13:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, your disagreements with my political opinions and your belief that opposition to Israeli discrimination against non-Jews is extremist (when in fact it is a belief shared by most of the people in the world), reflects your own POV. Our different political POVs have no bearing on the RfC where you virtually accused me of "anti-Semitism". The RfC was not intended for people who disagree with my politics to make vile accusations against me. But you, and others, who don't agree with my politics took it as an opportunity to do just that, in violation of the very Wikipedia standards that I was being accused of. --Alberuni 15:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have this "with us or against us" mentality, and frankly it's not my concern. All I worry about is that you have a large discrimination against something which is heavily involved in the articles you're writing on. If you were confined solely to "The case against X" etc. that'd be fine. But I do not believe that those with said discriminations should be presenting what, and it looks this way to me, their political slant on the issue is in the main article.

In any case, there's nothing I can or will do to stop you asides from monitering your activity to make sure that content you add comes from - unless otherwise stated - a respected, neutral source . Oberiko 19:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't make heads or tails out of your gibberish except for your "threat" at the end to monitor my activity. Good luck. --Alberuni 19:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's not have this get personal Alberuni, if I recall correctly, that's what started this to begin with.

It's not a threat either. You're biased, you've stated it openly. That in and of itself is merit to keep tabs on your writing, lest we allow Wikipedia to become a breeding ground for propoganda and extremist points of view. This is the last I'm writing on this matter here. Oberiko 20:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity. If you think that you are not biased, you're just kidding yourself. People who think they have no bias or pretend to have no bias lack the self-awareness required to realize when their own biases are seeping into their supposedly neutral writing. Good luck. --Alberuni 03:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there are many shades of grey between black-and-white. Oberiko 03:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of theaters and campaigns of World War II

Let's talk about the list of campaings for the Western Front and Italy that you are putting together because they seem like names which are very US concentric. I suggest that we talk about it on List of Talk:List_of_World_War_II_theaters_and_campaigns. Philip Baird Shearer 22:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am taking a Wiki holiday for the next few weeks. So I will not be helping you with you Western European campaignsof WWII. Good luck. Philip Baird Shearer 22:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, since you've interacted with me and I think you’ve acquainted with my work, I’d really appreciate if you could make a comment over at the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton. GeneralPatton 08:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Untagged Images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Sortior 21:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Also:

Image:Cromwell tank hierarchy.png RedWolf 20:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Image:Cromwell tank hierarchy2.png
Image:Cromwell tank hierarchy3.png

Category:Battle of the Pacific

What are you up to? Why are you re-categorizing all these articles? Did you discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles first? Please stop and discuss your proposed changes first. Gdr 18:13, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Please try to be more careful with speedy deletions. You deleted Dysthymia because it had the content "pants". However, it also had a two and a half year history of being a real article. Remember to check page history before speedy deleting! -- Cyrius|✎ 19:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)