User talk:MoRsE
 |
| 2012-03-05 |
|---|
|
Top stories
|
| About · Archives · Newsroom · Single-page · Suggestions |
[edit] The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Lisco Gloria
Hi, I can see you are working hard to make this a well-structured article, however I still have my doubts on notability but have avoided suggesting deletion as it is obviously under improvement. Can I suggest you consider the sources you have already found for evidence that this can be claimed to be either a notable example of destruction by fire or there is something about this ferry's history that makes it particularly notable? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am currently working on improving the article, looking for more data and references. It seems like its going to be quite a lot on the news today about the incident, but since it is a recent happening most news reports are from Danish and German media so far. --MoRsE (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Reporting User User:ROG5728 aka user User:Dodger67
I am unsure as to how to address this issue or in which forum so I am adding it here. Let me know if there is a better venue for this. Both these users appear to be a single individual. i am unable to edit in good faith the article 5.7x28mm due to the continual reverts. Just because Roger has provided a great deal time into the article does that mean he has the unquestioned right to protect the page to his liking. The oversight manifests to the article is akin to protectionism of the article. I have attempted make some changes in good faith and discussed them but the constant reverts are not protecting it from vandalism but can be construed as vandalism in itself. Thank you. DeusImperator (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I do not believe that the two users are the same. ROG5728 ususally edits during North American daylight hours, while Dodger67's edits are done basically during the same hours as myself (I'm in GMT+1) - supporting that claim that he well might be a South African national. They also devote their time to different type of articles, having coincidentally met on this one. If I understand correct (please correct me if I am wrong) then the argument is about a section header, and as the article is about a type of ammunition, I feel kind of inclined towards "Variants" or "Ammunition types" myself - instead of simply "Ammunition". As long as editing an article doesn't become a type of ownership claim of the text, then I support guardianship of the quality. I sincearly hope that you can work out some sort of solution to the disagreement. --MoRsE (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Variants implies that there is a dimensional or specification change (as construed by an official agency SAAMI or CIP), this is what most other cartridge related articles treat it as and this is the definition used by the Wikifirearms project. The article is about a cartridge: 5.7x28mm (this appears clear in the first sentence) and a discussion regarding variations pertains to the cartridge. This is how all other firearms articles treat the subject be it the 7.62 NATO or .223 Remington etc. So the article are about (subject) cartridges not ammunition per se. Ammunition is made in a cartridge type (a subtle difference). No one at present makes a variation on the cartridge. They (FN) make various types of ammunition for firearms chambered for the cartridge. This is the idea I was trying to get across. That is the reason why "Ammunition Types" will work but "Variants" is not technically correct. That is the edit I was trying to get across. DeusImperator (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, this is a bit out of my league :) (I do contribute to firearms articles, but usually not to ammunition types). One question: have you tried to address this point (in this form) to the other editors? This is starting to sound like a valid argument point to me for your stance. -MoRsE (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to do that. I am just a contributor and usually stick to that. DeusImperator (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also specifications would discuss specifications of the cartridge not specification of ammunition. Specifications are provided in the case of the 5.7x28mm by CIP under the oversight of the European parliament and is filed under Table I of the CIP rimless (non-flanged) documentation. The document contains the design details and specifications. This would germane to the discussion under Specifications. Rather Specification header discusses specification as relating to ammunition types instead.
- Okay, this is a bit out of my league :) (I do contribute to firearms articles, but usually not to ammunition types). One question: have you tried to address this point (in this form) to the other editors? This is starting to sound like a valid argument point to me for your stance. -MoRsE (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Variants implies that there is a dimensional or specification change (as construed by an official agency SAAMI or CIP), this is what most other cartridge related articles treat it as and this is the definition used by the Wikifirearms project. The article is about a cartridge: 5.7x28mm (this appears clear in the first sentence) and a discussion regarding variations pertains to the cartridge. This is how all other firearms articles treat the subject be it the 7.62 NATO or .223 Remington etc. So the article are about (subject) cartridges not ammunition per se. Ammunition is made in a cartridge type (a subtle difference). No one at present makes a variation on the cartridge. They (FN) make various types of ammunition for firearms chambered for the cartridge. This is the idea I was trying to get across. That is the reason why "Ammunition Types" will work but "Variants" is not technically correct. That is the edit I was trying to get across. DeusImperator (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a way to have some editors independent of the User:ROG5728 or User:Dodger67 look at the article or how would I go about having someone take look at the discussion. DeusImperator (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
[edit] Galleys and pojamas
Hi.
I noticed you reverted some of my corrections to pojama. I'm working on intended DYK updates of all the archipelago frigates, and I'd just thought I'd give you a heads up that I consider both "galley type" capitalization of ship types erroneous. Neither appears to have support in the sources I've consulted.
If you want to verify my sources before I make my update, check out User:Peter Isotalo/skärgårdsbåtar.
Peter Isotalo 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I believe that when it comes to English text, these ships and the classes should be capitalized, but it is just a gut feeling of mine, and not a big issue either really for me. --MoRsE (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- If it was a class, it would be correct, but not when it's considered to be a ship type (albeit very specific and quite rare). Compare with xebec or polacca. The only writer that I've seen capitalizing the four archipelago frigates is Berg, and he's Swedish. RC Anderson consistently refers to the same way he does to frigates or sloops.
- I'll see what I can do about working the galley connection into the lead. I believe you're right about stressing the connection, though I believe that the term "galley like" is somewhat of an over-simplification. There are more precise definitions to galleys other than the fact that they're propelled by oars.
- Peter Isotalo 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I chose the wording "Galley-like", mainly because the grand era of galleys had passed by the time Skärgårdsflottan was operating. --MoRsE (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, nice updates! :) --MoRsE (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm going to make a DYK request for them soon. If you're interested in getting some DYK credit, sv:skärgårdsflottan is still a redlink here, both as archipelago fleet and skärgårdsflottan. It would fit quite nicely in the same hook as the ship types if it were to be created within the next few days...
- Peter Isotalo 13:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I made a quick translation of the Swedish page, but I had to leave out a little information in the "Vessels" section, as I have no idea what the smaller vessels are called in English. There is probably work still to be done on the text. --MoRsE (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- A very good start, though. I made some justeringar and added pics and refs. If you don't object, I'll nominate all five articles at T:TDYK (suggestion for nomination here. I can help out with archipelago fleet if any improvements are called for.
- Peter Isotalo 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I made a quick translation of the Swedish page, but I had to leave out a little information in the "Vessels" section, as I have no idea what the smaller vessels are called in English. There is probably work still to be done on the text. --MoRsE (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, nice updates! :) --MoRsE (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I chose the wording "Galley-like", mainly because the grand era of galleys had passed by the time Skärgårdsflottan was operating. --MoRsE (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- The archipelago fleet articles are coming up for DYK pretty soon. They've been inserted in a prep area already.[1] Co-congrats to a job well done!
- Peter Isotalo 18:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] DYK: Hemmema, Turuma, Pojama, Udema & Archipelago fleet ?
Hello, MoRsE & Peter Isotalo. I have nominated these 5 wikiarticles that you have recently edited for DYK on Wikipedia's MainPage. You can see the nomination here. Please feel free to propose new (better) hooks there. For DYK purposes, please add more footnotes and refs to the 'History' section of Archipelago fleet. DYK clerks usually ask for at least one footnote per paragraphs. The other 4 wikiarticles need footnotes to go with the proposed DYK hook. I have put in {cn} there. Please add footnotes and refs if you are interested in having articles you have worked on featured on MainPage. Thank you. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Archipelago fleet
 |
On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archipelago fleet, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Fredrik Henrik af Chapman
|
On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
[edit] Happy, happy
[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Q A-class
Template:Q A-class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 02:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Happy 10th
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
|
|||
[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Vaasan rata
Template:Vaasan rata has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Pohjanmaan rata
Template:Pohjanmaan rata has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
[edit] The Finnish Air Force has no flag
Look at the discussion here, please. --WPK (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
[edit] Proposed deletion of Anti-Spoofing
The article Anti-Spoofing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Hopelessly tagged since 2008
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Feedback/review needed
- Hello, pertaining to your earlier comment on Talk:Bofors 57 mm gun, please take note that the article has been revamped and I could use some feedback for further improvement. Thanks and best! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of 2008 Guam B-52 crash
The article 2008 Guam B-52 crash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- While a tragedy, this accident isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Aircraft, especially military aircraft, sometimes crash; only some crashes are notable enough for articles, not all. Using WP:AIRCRASH as a guideline: there were no deaths of anyone notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, and no unclassified changes in procedures or modifications to the B-52 as a result of the crash. Therefore a standalone article seems to be unwarranted.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 05:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination of 2008 Guam B-52 crash for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2008 Guam B-52 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Guam B-52 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Military ranks of Finland
Template:Military ranks of Finland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello MoRsE! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire
Hi MoRsE! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:
- What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
- Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
- What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
- Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.
Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out.
; ~~~ #My strengths #Articles I'd like to see the task force improve #: #: #: #: #Sources which I have #: #: #Articles I'm willing to provide assistance #:
Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you interested in Soviet fighter and bomber aircraft like the Su-27, MiG-21/25/29 and the like? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
