User talk:Toddy1/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:53, 22 September 2011

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime History Task Force

Hello, Toddy1.

If you wish to participate in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force, I recommend that you add your name here.

Regards, John Moore 309 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Toddy1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Thanks for your contribution on Royal Navy, by the way. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page redirect

I recently came across the following guidance on Wikipedia:User page:

If you would prefer not to have a user page, then it is recommended that you redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors.

Since it appears that you do not wish to maintain a User Page, I have taken the liberty of placing such a redirect on your own User Page. Please accept my apologies if this does not reflect your intentions. Regards, John Moore 309 13:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dnipropetrovsk

Hi, could you please restate your question. Sorry, I did not get it. To give you a general answer, I put all my preferences aside and, in accordance with WP:NC(UE) I use the most commonly used English name for the Ukrainian locations. The most objective way to determine the most common modern English usage is to analyze the usage of major players of the anglophone media market. I happen to have an access to LexisNexis which allows to analyze and compare different usage. As of now, the prevailing usages are Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk as far as these two cities are concerned. Please check here for a long and detailed discussion of the issue. --Irpen 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ironclad warship

Hi there. I saw your interest in 19th century warships on the Maritme History Taskforce, and was wondering if you could have a look at ironclad warship, which I'm in the process of improving. Would be useful to have some comments! Many thanks, The Land 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

HMS Inflexible's armament

Hi, I just noticed your recent edit to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. The statement which you deleted about HMS Inflexible's armament was not particularly bizarre, as it took between 2.5 and 4 minutes to reload the muzzle-loading main guns. -- Arwel (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have done, but that's no reason to say the guns were "useless for naval warfare". The Land 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted in discussion page of Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher.--Toddy1 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden steam warships

Please feel free to make edits to User:The Land/Wooden steam warship - I am waiting until it's largely complete before moving it into articlespace, but I'm keen to address the lack of coverage of this era... The Land 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dates

Which article are you talking about? Colonies Chris 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan class (1859) --Toddy1 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Canadian escorts

I've had a look - good work, it's not easy to make good articles on small ships. I did downgrade the later Kootenay to stub-class, because while the infobox is very complete there is not enough prose to count it as a 'start'. Regards, The Land 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 11:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:References

I added the reference to the edit in question at HMS Tiger (1913). I thought I had done so at the time, but I apparently forgot. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes

User:Toddy1/Sandbox1 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:23:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Anglo-Egyptian War

I'm of a mind to revise a category I created Category:People of the Urabi Revolt to category:People of the Anglo Egyptian War. Would you have a preference here? Kernel Saunters 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Inconstant (1868)

Excellent work on the above article. You have made my stub into a masterpiece. Thank you! Gillyweed 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Sea Lords

Hi, you reverted my edits on the Template:First Sea Lord. I was just wondering why. My only intention was to bring it under the new standard template designs at WP:MILHIST#NAV. I would like to know what grieves you so much about the change to call it very unhelpful. Thanks Woodym555 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned succession boxes, i think succession boxes serve their purpose. The "state = collapsed" parameter had to be removed, that is all, not the change to a milhist navbox. Personally i think it takes up less space on the page if it is hidden, but if you don't want the compress feature activated then i won't. I don't think it is that much of a stretch for a any user to click on the Show button. Maybe i am overestimating people's common sense?

Unless you object i will add in the milhist generic navbox template but without the compressed feature: Woodym555 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

HMS Marlborough (1767)

Well spotted. I've given it a tweak and it seems to read fine now. Pip pip Benea 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Toddy1 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies for Dnepropetrovsk Discussion edit

For some reason I thought it was your edit, my apologies. I wonder who removed the views from even discussion that they dont agree with ?

Renames

Propose renaming a couple of articles you started:

Bulwark Class Battleship (1859) to Bulwark class battleship (1859)
Duncan class (1859) to Duncan class battleship (1859)

When you get a chance, please let me know if this is appropriate. Thanks. Maralia 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I have no objection.--Toddy1 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC) However, it would probably be better to use "line-of-battle ship" as that is what they were called at the time. The term "battleship" is a contraction of "line-of-battle ship" and seems to date from 1882.--Toddy1 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddy1, I was just about to ask you about that, namely "would you have any objection to 'Bulwark class ship of the line (1859)' and 'Duncan class ship of the line (1859)'". But I guess now that you wouldn't. If that's ok with you, mind if I make the move? Kind regards, Benea 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that "line-of-battle ship" and "liner" were the preferred term for steam line-of-battle ships. I have only ever seen "ship of the line" used for sailing vessels (Fincham uses the term.) What I have done is to put a rename proposal up.--Toddy1 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to 'Line of battle ship'. Perhaps we could get some opinions from WP:Ships? Benea 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is always line-of-battle ship. Not line of battle ship.--Toddy1 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, attempting to be brief, carpe diem and all that. But since you mention it, the convention is not to use dashes in the article titles, hence Arrogant class ship of the line, Canada class ship of the line and Ramillies class ship of the line. But we would refer to them in prose text as line-of-battle ship. --Benea 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ships

Hi, good work with the article by the way. As to those ships, I was going off the wikipedia articles for those classes, which seem to use Lavery. Hence Minden and Invincible are listed as members of the Culloden class ship of the line and Montague as a member of the Royal Oak class ship of the line. I think it could be two sources listing the ships in a slightly different way, so I'm not really sure what the correct classification is. If you want to change that back, by all means go ahead. Perhaps Rif knows something about it. If we list them differently, we should probably alter the class articles accordingly though. Kind regards, Benea 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

Thanks for your message. I have added this article to my watchlist and added copious references to the talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I was thinking it might be fun to get this up to FA. I've long been interested in Fisher and there's no shortage of material. User:Carom is interested in the Royal Navy and he could be roped in too. (We did the Battle of Arras (1917) together and are currently working on another project.} --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the First Sea lord template - some info. Woody changed it because Fisher became Baron Fisher just before he left the Admiralty first time round. (November 1909). See here for the rationale. I'm not fussed either way. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's elevation to the House of Lords was a retirement present.--Toddy1 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which he received a couple of months before he left office. (Anyway, as I said, I'm not fussed either way.) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

This is my first post to you, and I really hope I am not bothering you bad. I am here to make a request. Can you, please, take a look at the Bangladesh Liberation War article. I have tried and improved it so some extent, but a lot more is needed. Can you give me some directions? I promise to work on them as much possible. One thing I should mention is that the article is currently heavily overlapping with with the interconnected articles linked as "see also" or "main article" on that page. If you respond to this, please, do so either on the talk page of the article or my talk page. My plan is to work on your feedback first, and then request a copyeditor to collaborate, and only then take it to peer review. Given the scope of the article and availability of material, this ought to become FA with a little help. And, oh, it has been submitted for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh Liberation War/archive1, too. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

Looks good to me, and I think they make good additions to those pages. I think they're just right as they are, in a relevent bit of the text, and so a reader can click on them to get a better look at what it shows. Quite a striking difference when the iron clads start coming into service, but I suppose that's what you would expect. All in all, in my opinion, a nice encyclopedic addition. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Benea 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great graphic, I'm not sure it's in the right place in the Battleship article quite yet. The Land 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ships-of-the-line

Hmm, that can be a tricky one. My suggestion would be to create the links for the Royal Navy ship names, together with the date they were captured, i.e. HMS Implacable (1805) was the French ship Duguay-Trouin. The exception would be if an article on the ship under its previous name already existed, i.e. French ship Scipion, which became HMS Scipion. The basic guide is to use the name under which it had the most notable career. If this is clear cut, you can create the article under that name, with a redirect from the other name, whether its French ship such-and-such, or HMS so-and-so. If it's a bit more ambiguous, I'd suggest using the RN name, and we can later decide whether to rename it, or create a seperate article for her career with the other navy.

As to the list, my preference would be "(2) Show those ships started as sailing ships", as then we get a good overview of that transition period, and it illustrates the period and rate of conversions. We can then have a note alongside them, such as "converted to screw propulsion, 18??" Just my opinions these, but I hope it helps. Let me know if I can help out anymore. Kind regards, Benea 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of those things I suppose, to do it by the date the ship came into the possession of the country the article name is at. So for ships built for the Navy it would be the year of launch, for those captured, the year of capture. If we were to write an article for the ship's French career, it would be French Ship Duguay-Trouin (1795) but for her Royal Navy career, it's at HMS Implacable (1805), because that was when she became HMS Implacable, as opposed to Duguay-Trouin. If we named it otherwise, we'd be implying through the title that she was HMS Implacable since 1795. So we do it this way to show when she bore this name, and have part of the article to talk about an earlier career when she went by another name. Hope that makes some sort of sense, Benea 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

		The Epic Barnstar
		Can't help awarding you one of these for your wonderful contribution in developing the article on Bangladesh Liberation War. Thanks, I'll try to adress all the issues you raised as much as I can. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things - (1) I have shifted the review to the peer review page, and I hope you don't mind; and (2) you suggested some cites from Indian or Pakistani sources, but I don't know anyone who I can ask for help to that end, and therefore it'd be a great help you suggested an editor who I can turn to. Cheers.

Trophy Cabinet

Perhaps you need a user page to store your barnsters and awards Mike Young 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) If you think one is needed, pls create it.--Toddy1 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warship template

Hi - I left a response over on my talk page. Cheers,Plasma east 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there as well. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy

You can access it through the show feature on the MILHIST banner on the talk page. Here is the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy, it has now been archived. Hope this helps. By the way, on reflection i think you edits to the FSL template are correct, i am just not sure that all the other names currently follow that procedure. Woodym555 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Warrior (1832)

A couple quick comments. Thanks for your edits on the article. :) I was unaware of the distinction, which brings me to another point, just so I am sure I understand this correctly, a boat operates on mostly inland waters and a ship operates at sea, is that about right? Also, is the title okay, or does the title need to include its a steamboat, that seemed a bit much for a title to me but would be happy to submit to prevailing convention on this. IvoShandor 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny is that as soon as I saw your comment at WP:SHIPS I went to change the article, got there it still read "ship", clicked edit, and it read "vessel" and just second from an edit conflict we were. :) IvoShandor 10:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. IvoShandor 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your pictures of Dnipropetrovsk are very interesting, I liked them, thanks for having them posted. IvoShandor 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

This has been restructured to remove a lot of the repeated info. Hope you like the result. Mike Young 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jonathan Sayeed

See Talk:Jonathan Sayeed#Article_needs_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest responses: I have replied there, and also at Talk:Chris Pond. I think that the Sayeed article is coming on nicely, and should soon be a good article candidate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with the Sayeed article.

I merely want to produce a good biography of the man. This means that I want to reproduce the facts of his life, and to give verifiable sources for them.
You seem overly concerned about how facts fit in with the POV of the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. If facts about his expenses do not fit in with this POV, you deem them irrelevant.

I think that for the time being the best thing for me to do is to stand back, and make no further alternations or comments on the article for a few weeks. Maybe in mid-November it will be possible to see a way forward.

I do not want to produce a work of propaganda condemning the man. The life of an MP is very different from that of normal working people. With respect of some of the facts of their lives it is necessary to show context in order for readers to be able to understand the facts.--Toddy1 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy, I have spent a long chunks of my life working in and around the Palace of Westminster with MPs of all parties, and I entirely agree about how their lives are different. I find that a lot of headlines about MPs' expenses levels are highly misleading, implying that money was reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when in fact most of it never went anywhere near the MP's hands, being used instead to pay staff wages and office costs. But that's largely a function of how parliament has chosen to misleadingly present all these items as "expenses" rather than as establishment costs. I think that most office workers would be outraged if they were to find that the cost of the PC on their desk, the rent for their room, the stamps on the mail they post and the even the salaries of their assistant were amalgamated and published as an overall "expenses" figure along with their travel expenses and entertainment bills, but that's what MPs have chosen to do themselves, without any parallel publication of how a 70-hour work week is the norm.

My concern is neither to uphold the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, nor to condemn them, but simply to uphold the principle that wikipedia strives for verifiability, using reliable sources, and per WP:NOR does not indulge in its own primary research. If there are reliable secondary sources commenting on the overall level of an MP's expenses then, by all means use them, and back up the references with figures listed in the primary sources. Similarly, if there is coverage in reliable secondary sources of the committee's findings, then use that, subject to balance -- but if, for example, there were several reports in the broadsheets denouncing the committee as pedantic and vindictive partisan twits who missed the point and unfairly condemned a good man, those reports should be used to bring those views into the article. Similarly, if there are reports criticising the committee for merely having recommended suspended an MP rather than flogging or guillotining him, use those ones to introduce that perspective.

The point in all of this is that wikipedia doesn't reach judgements on a person, it records those made by others. You are quite right to want to show the man's life in context, but that context should be derived from secondary sources, not primary ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pond

BTW, I was wondering if your reply above meant that you didn't want to respond to the questions I asked at Talk:Chris Pond. I would prefer to see the POV tag removed, and would like to discuss it, but if you don't want to discuss it, I think that I should just remove it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not remove the POV tag until someone has corrected the problems.

BBC Bias. I accepted your arguments on the BBC bias issue yesterday, and did not refer to that with the POV tag. The degree of bias by the BBC when comparing these two cases shocked me. But there is not much I can do about it.

Labour Party of 2005 General Election POV. There were a number of edits that subtly introduced a distinct Labour Party of 2005 General Election POV.

"Pond was arrested by the police after an alleged attack on a young mother's house." 'Alleged' introduces an element of doubt into whether it really happened. But the Daily Mail article said that "Last night, Mr Pond admitted causing criminal damage". The Times article also says that "Mr Pond was then told that he was being offered a police caution for criminal damage, which meant admitting his guilt and paying £120 to repair the door... Mr Pond told the newspaper: “I decided to bring the nightmare to an end by accepting a caution. I have to accept I made a mistake. If leaving traces of glue on the door constitutes criminal damage, I have to take responsibility for it.”" The Daily Mail article stresses very strongly that the attack was violent and frightened the victim.
You have deleted the statement that "the Attorney General. Lord Goldsmith was a Ministerial colleague". This is pertinent to the issue of why he got off with a caution, and comes from the sources.
Chronologically, Mr Pond's violent attack on the house took place before the election. Yet you have moved it to a later position in the article. This suggests that the incident was not pertinent to the election. Evidence from other elections (e.g. the Martin Bell vs Neil Hamilton election) suggests that if apparently unbiased media portray one candidate as a nasty person, it helps his/her opponent.

Apart from these three matters, I have no quarrel with your copy edits on Mr Pond.--Toddy1 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to Talk:Chris Pond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in infoboxes

Hello, Toddy1. A discussion on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Dormskirk 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note

please stop making statements regarding what you believe i think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not think it was pertinent, why did you make an edit inserting it?--Toddy1 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please feel free to provide diffs and ask about them; but please don't feel free to make estimations and declarations of what you assume i think or feel.

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a correction--Toddy1 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blind revert

I noticed that you restored an elementary factual error to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". I know it's hard to keep up with these controversial edit-warred-over articles, but please try to avoid this type of thing. "Operation Defensive Wall" was a 2002 series of incursions and raids into Palestinian towns and had nothing to do with a literal wall. <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not know. The comments by the deleting person suggested that that it was a politically derived deletion.--Toddy1 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Japanese alliance

Hey there! Thanks for taking a look at the article. I should have no problem adding page-referenced citations for any statements that need it. In my previous wikipedia work I think I've tended to over-cite, so I could use some feedback on what needs citing and what doesn't. Could you let me know which kind of statements you think I ought to add a citation to? Also, could you leave a message on the talk page about your problems with the neutrality of the final section? I don't have an impassioned bias when it comes to Japanese history, so if you let me know where I went wrong I would probably be happy to follow your advice. Rupa zero (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but I was away for Christmas. Please you could show me a page that you consider overciting. Wikipedia has good tools for quoting large numbers of references to the same source, so it is not normally a problem.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnought again

Merry Christmas! I've had another bash at working the dates and the theories into a narrative at User:The Land/Dreadnought. Your comments would be warmly welcomed! The Land (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got there before I posted here! Please don't get the impression that I'm trying to erase your work on the article - very much the contrary, you have added a depth of knowledge which I'm not able to. I am essentially trying to improve the article so that it reads more easily and so that the motivation for the change to dreadnought-style armament is more readily understandable. Regards, The Land (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story as I see it is as follows - though putting it in with citations is hard and long work, especially as people keep editing it.

With main armament, people tried adding intermediate calibre weapons (9.2", 10", and shorter barrel 12"), these seemed good idea at the time because of the advantage of rapidity of fire, but once they were in service they turned out to be a mistake. They complicated logistics by adding another type of gun/ammunition. With the local fire control they were designed for, the difficulty in telling whose shot was whose was exactly the same as with a homogenous main armament; but with centralised fire control (such as Scott's director) the difficulty two types of main armament was a big problem. However what killed the intermediate calibre main armament was the need for armour penetration at longer ranges caused by the increased range of torpedoes.

Most 12" gun dreadnoughts had lots of 12" turrets. These were there to give better arcs of fire, or to increase the broadside weight. However the drive to increase the number of turrets was countered by adopting either turrets with more than 2 guns, or heavier calibre guns. BY the time the Queen Elizabeths were designed, the arrangement of main armament turrets was the same as the predreadnoughts, except the guns were 15" instead of 12", and the development of superimposed turrets led to pairs of turrets. (Note that British sighting hoods did not allow the B turret to fire directly forward if the A turret was manned. The sighting hoods were modified post-WWI to allow this.)

Ideas and equipment for centralised fire control had been under development since about 1890. However until the various components were all there, they were not much use under conditions of fleet battle. Hence in 1904-05, ignoring centralised fire control was the right thing to do, whereas in 1914-18 centralised fire control was very important (indeed the Russians used centralised fire control to have a director on one ship control fire by 3 ships as if they were all part of the same ship). The dreadnought concept was not intitially intended for centralised fire control; indeed older British dreadnoughts had masts in particularly unfortunate positions for centralised fire control.

The intermediate calibre ships and early British/US dreadnoughts sacrificed the (approximately) 6" secondary armament so they could have the increased main armament for a limited increase in the size/cost of the ship, and the crew size/running costs. This turned out to be a big mistake; one the Germans did not make. By the time of Queen Elizabeths, a full 6" secondary armament had been restored. Eventually (though this happened post-war) the secondary armament got its centralised fire control (directors).

Early dreadnoughts had the same armour distribution as had been developed for the predreadnoughts. In the US, the opportunity was taken to correct the many short-cuts taken with protection with US predreadnoughts. With British dreadnoughts, the need to economy meant that the British took more shortcuts with armour with early dreadnoughts than with ships like Lord Nelson. At full load the armour belt at the waterline on Dreadnought was 4" - very inferior to Lord Nelson. (Incidentally the much-criticised HMS Agincourt was actually rather good in this respect.)

The US innovated with all-or-nothing armour with their 14" gun dreadnoughts - this concept had previously been used in 1880s central-citadel ships such as the Italian Duilio, British Inflexible, and the German Sachsen.

As ranges increased, deck armour and the horizontal armour of turrets became more important.

The introduction of turbines was a big success.

The introduction of the intermediate ships and the dreadnoughts led to another period of very rapid size growth. One reason this was accepted was that the slump in the non-defence orders for shipbuilding industry meant that the cost per ton was lower than would otherwise have been the case. The other reason was that admirals started to claim that earlier battleships no longer counted and used this to obtain additional funds - which Britain could ill afford (Pugh did a good critique of this)

The increase in size and therefore initial and running costs made a big decrease in battleship numbers inevitable for nations where the rate of GDP increase was less than the rate of increase in battleship cost (see Pugh). The arms race before WWI meant that this reality was postposed. Once WWI was over there was a big scrapping - this was inevitable, even if the war and the later arms treaties had not happened. Interestingly, the rate of grown of the pre-WWI German economy meant that the German economy could have sustained the cost growth. This is probably why the Germans did not go for the "buy new, scrap early" procurement strategy followed by Fisher. Because there was still a need for numbers, post WWI, cruisers ended up taking on many roles previously filled by battleships.

The dreadnought idea was also applied to armoured cruisers, producing the 'battlecruiser'.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very helpful to see such a summary so that I can see the direction you want to take things in. It is basically the same as where I want to take it (the incremental nature of wiki-editing might not help communicate that). Let me see what I can make of my sandbox version; I tend to work by putting down prose first and then sourcing it later. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got there with the origins section in the sandbox at User:The Land/Dreadnought- I've added a bit more detail (all well-sourced) and I think the structure helps make the rationale for the move from all-big-gun mixed-caliber to single-calibre clearer. Do you have any objection to me putting that into the article? Regards, The Land (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some factual corrections.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brownfield architecture

An editor has nominated Brownfield architecture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownfield architecture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

I've had a look over, and assigned it a rating of B class. As always, this may be challenged or overturned by another editor, but I think that unlikely. There might be one or two little quibbles over points 1 (It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited) and 2 (It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies) but I think certainly not enough to justify downgrading it.

A few suggestions if you wanted to move the list further up the assessment scale:

1) A longer lead and introduction, discussing what the background of the battle was, the main points about how it was fought, and the outcome.
2) A small section on the historiography might be a useful addition.
3) Summarising the results of the tables to follow - brief discussion of total numbers present, those that became casualties, etc. Also on disposition of ships, guns and other potentially relevant factors to the battle and its outcome.
4) A picture, just to illustrate the battle or a particular moment, to go with the lead.
5) A full reference section, with perhaps some other works mentioned. Separate sections for external links, notes and literature as applicable.

A similar article, currently rated as a Featured list is the Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, and shows some of these points in action, if you wanted a model. As to formatting issues, that's not my particular bailiwick but someone from the League of Copyeditors should be able to offer a few tips. Hope this is all of help. It is a thorough and complete list and with a little work should have no trouble making featured list. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships

My profound apologies to all concerned. This convention is so alien to all other Wikipedia naming conventions that it never occurred to me that it was correct. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

Hello -- Your recent edit to Japanese battleship Asahi resulted in a massive number of red date links. The date format "1912-05-28" in double brackets (1912-05-28 (for example) yields the exact same result as "May 28, 1912" in double brackets (May 28, 1912), so there was no need for most of the changes as they were made. As I am sure you are aware, the Wikipedia format does not recognize the whole date in double brackets, May 28, 1912, which is why the dates are now all disrupted in the artcle. --MChew (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are forgetting that most English people write dates 15 May 1912, not 1912-05-28. As for the concept of dates being 'disrupted', I do not understand what you mean.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some English people prefer 15 May 1912; others prefer May 15, 1912; and even others prefer 1912 May 15. You can use the normal Wikimedia date formatting hooks (see WP:MOSDATE), and it will display the dates correctly. What you did by adding the pipe links like [[1897-08-01|01 Aug 1897]] forces a single format on everyone, and is not any better than the original. The MOS says that in a list context, dates like 1912-05-15 is acceptable, but in prose, a readable format needs to be used. When the reader is logged into an account, there is no difference; but, for unregistered users, they'll see whatever is in the brackets. Anyway, I've brought one of your redirects to the attention of WP:RFD to see if they are still necessary, now that the date formatting issues are fixed. Neier (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia exists for the benefit of normal people. Normal people when they look at a wikipedia page that says 1900-02-05 see 1900-02-05. They do not see 5 February 1900. Wikipedia should be written for the benefit of people who speak English.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dnipropetrovsk

Hey, nice job on expanding the history section of Dnipropetrovsk! I tried to clean it up a long time ago, but it will be a major undertaking.. I succeeded with Donetsk, see the way it was before I came to it [1].. Maybe we'll be able to get it to Good article status later on.. Cheers, —dima /talk/ 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship citations

I agree that the battleship article is a fair bit weaker than, say, the parts of dreadnought you and I have worked on. I can currently see a few dozen half-truths and inaccuracies in it, so I imagine you can see a few hundred ;-) However it's still a well-cited article, given the breadth of the subject, and I don't think tagging it generally with a citations tag is going to help. Realistically, there are a group of about 5 or 6 Wikipedians, including both you and I, who can improve that article from where it stands. I intend to return to 'battleship' after dreadnought and treaty battleship are finally featured. In the meantime, raising the issues with the article on the talk page is probably the most productive thing to do. Best regards, The Land (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that astonishes me is that there are a huge number of people who have seemingly infinite time to to reform bits of articles to use some pet template they have an obsession about, and so few who can be bothered to generate the content of articles with proper citations. I looked at one infobox conversion last weekend for French battleship Dévastation (1879) and was appalled by what was there - I have since fixed the infobox - it was not hard, just time consuming.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why so many infoboxes are being converted but I assume there is a good reason for it somewhere. There are not many people who have the resources to supply detailed references or work up great articles in each specialised field! Different people have different roles to play... The Land (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I can't find the source for my original statement about the reloading time for Duilio, but Brown (who is pretty reliable) gives an even longer one. I would not be terribly surprised: the turrets had to be moved into loading position, the guns declined, the barrel swept (I assume) and then a new shell loaded - all involving massive pieces of metalwork and either worked by hand or by steam, which I gather waas not the most reliable. Regards, The Land (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was surprised by your figure was that the Italian Navy in its rules for maneouvres quoted them with a rate of 1 round every 15 minutes. The figure you gave seems much too fast.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a substantial number of "fact" tags to the Battleship article. I also noticed the article has a substantial number of general references. I would like to better understand your criteria for adding a fact tag. Is it your position that all the statements you tagged are probably untrue, and probably could not be found in the general references? Did you attempt to find any of the statements in any of the references before tagging them? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position is that the statements need citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that general references are acceptable, and there is no requirement for each and every statement to have an inline reference? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By placing the fact tags I have successfully encouraged people to put in references - thus greatly reducing the number of fact tags. I placed them sparingly, only where citations were absolutely necessary. Remember it is supposed to be a featured article, not a start class article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Image Deletion

Your welcome =D « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battleships of France

Good work! Very thorough and just the kind of treatment those list articles need. I can see only two ways of improving it. First when talking about 'lozenge' or 'pre-dreadnought' layout there should be something to explain to the reader what that means - whether it's a wikilink, reference or parenthesis. Secondly, some of the references probably need page references. I wouldn't say this is necessary for the bulk of them - if you are referencing to (say) Conway's where every ship or class has an article and those articles are all comprehensively indexed, there is no need for a page number. However you might think about whether this applies to every statement, or every source, you have referenced. Thanks a lot for your work! The Land (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied...

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Sorry! the_ed 17 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB

Hi Toddy

Thought I'd just drop you a quick pointer to WP:MOSDAB after I undid your good faith edits to Bradford (disambiguation). Per WP:MOSDAB, links to disambiguated articles should not be piped, and other words should not be linked. The only exception is if the disambiguated term is a redlink, when one other term may be linked.

Hope this bit of disambiguation pedantry helps :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I do not mind - all I objected to was a disambiguation page for a Bradford, with a line entitled 'Brad'... I neither know nor care about the extremely-obscure musician in question. Ultimately what you did made it better.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milliknots

Well I'm amazed ... and in the nineteenth century.

As for "kts", according to the MoS, abbreviations/symbols should not be pluralised. That would leave us with "kt" but since this is the metric symbol for kilotonne the MoS advises using "kn" and {{convert}} is following suit. If "kn" is garbage, I'll stop adding abbr=on to conversions from knots using {{convert}} in the ship infoboxes I come across. Note, though, that the template currently treats kn and knot as equivalent.

Anyhow, how did they manage such precision? Plus, I've just had a thought, {{convert}} takes the knot to be 1.852 km/h exactly but were these measurements done with the old British knot of 6,080 ft/h? If so, the template will be doing the wrong conversion ... which probably won't matter since we're rounding the conversion to the nearest kilometre per hour but ... JIMp_talk·cont 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They measured the time the ship took to travel a distance - usually a mile. One of the reasons for using the average of several readings was so that they could measure it going each way - thus getting rid of the effect of currents.

Of course the measurements used the knot of 6080 ft.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Armoured Battleships

There is much confusion arising about the status of ships at the time. Much of this has to do with different meanings of the word "Commissioned", which then simply meant assigned to an active squadron. Most of the early ironclads went straight into Steam Reserve and were only Commissioned several years after they were effective fighting units. Thus taking launch dates is a far better metric for assessing actual strength. Once a vessel was launched it could be a Commissioned fighting ship 4-6 weeks later if required (as indeed happened to HMS Defence during the Trent Crisis). As Parke's notes in British Battleships, there was no sense of urgency in Britain, they simply Commissioned vessels as needed.

As for Scorpion and Wivern, they certainly were seagoing, even if they rolled heavily and sailed poorly. 67th Tigers (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Battle of Legnica

Good question. In my recent readings (see Mongol invasion of Poland I recently wrote) it appeared that while the army was likely that of Duke (NOT king - error #1) Bolesław V the Chaste, Bolesław was not personally present with it (he was already escaping). So I wanted to clarify that. Second, there was no "battle near Kraków"; there were two battles east of Kraków - battle of Tursk and battle of Chmielnik. They have articles on pl wiki, also you can check Tursk (pl:Tursko Wielkie) and Chmielnik for maps and compare them to were Kraków is (they are close but not that close for the battle to be known as battle of Kraków). Kraków was abandoned and Mongols pillaged it freely after Chmielnik. PS. After some digging, I found a ref to confirm that BV escaped, and the army was commanded by voivode Włodzimierz: [2] (Richard A. Gabriel Subotai the Valiant, p.112).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jackie fisher

I noticed you placed a (fact) tag into the introduction of the jackie fisher article. The introduction of any wiki article is supposed to summarise facts which are explained at greater length later in the article, as is the case here. Perhaps you could remove the tag from the introduction, where as far as I can see the intro accuately summarises the later text, and place it where you think appropriate in the longer later section, which I think would be the section, 'first sea lord(1904-1910). Sandpiper (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

Your post might be more persuasive if it indicated some specifics. Care to reword a bit?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light tanks

Hey Todd. Thanks for your help on the MilHist talkpage. I just have a couple of questions. How many pages does Chamberlain et al devote to all the Vickers-Armstrong light tanks in all? And is the 6-Tonner the same as the Mark I, or is there a separate Mark I model? Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cheers for all that. I'm going up to the National Archives in a few days to research for my MA, and I think I'll pop into the IWM as well. I've been there once before, a few years ago - very nice research facility they have. The bookstores are real useful, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hms Hood

Hi, In UK English, in which the article is written, "signalled" is correct. And a cruiser does not "escort" a battleship! Please don't revert the second point again without taking to "Talk" if you wish. Regards, bigpad (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Britannia (1860)

H.M.S. Prince of Wales was never actually completed as a "major capital ship" and never went to sea under sail or steam and being fitted with only a foremast (see Captain S. W. C. Pack, R.N., Britannia at Dartmouth, p. 41). I doubt she even received her armament of 131 guns. I would ask you to reconsider the move you have just made. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history wikiproject

The example article Battle of Corydon has changed, and so I took the liberty of editing your response to link to the version that had the deficiencies you remarked on. I didn't think you'd mind but wanted to inform you since it generally is improper and rude to do this sort of thing. Regards, -J JMesserly (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARA Santísima Trinidad

Hi Toody1. My Apologies for the delay in replying. I was searching for sources about the first Santísima Trinidad to see service on the Argentine navy. Unfortunately, what I found is not enough to start a new article. I only have two references in Spanish (online): Diccionario Biográfico de Ecuador and Instituto Nacional Browniano. I also have a book about the naval operations during the Argentine War of Independence. The websites only mention -one of them in detail- the voyage that this ship made (along with two others) as a privateer on the Pacific coast of South America, still under Spanish rule. The brig was commanded by the Irish-borne Admiral Guillermo Brown and his brother Michael. The first link mentions the fate of the Trinidad which run aground in the course of a botched attack against the port of Guayaquil. The second link only have a paragraph about her operational history. The book, whose title is Corsarios Argentinos ("Argentine Privateers"), gives just a few more facts, like the brig's armament (the author only take account of 20 guns of different calibers) and the Argentine government ownership of the Trinidad (conversely, the other two vessels were property of the Browns brothers). I could search on public libraries here in Argentina, but this demands time and probably a trip to Buenos Aires, 400 km to the north (We have only two large libraries in my home city). I promise, however, to put the article about the first Santisima Trinidad on my agenda. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksToddy1 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jtodesdude

Hi Toddy. I just re-formatted the users talk page to separate your edit and the "April 2009, warning" section. His/her first two edits where clearly "joke edits" (assuming at least some good fait) and therefore I gave the editor just a low level warning. BTW, this is the link s/he added twice: [3]. Just an innocent mistake by the editor? I don't think so :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy in Somalia

I'm afraid the editing does indeed appear to be moving in the direction you describe. However, that is bound to happen when folks are as obviously non-neutral as that other editor (have a look at this for examples of what I'm talking about). Don't get me wrong; I would love to take a break from the article, but only under the condition that the other editor does as well. But I'm still not sure if a one week lay off is enough to change a person's entire ethos. Remember, this is the editor that wrote "Personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals that cost the world billions of dollars and who have no problem hijacking shipments of UN food aid." Hardly neutral. Middayexpress (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, but whether the other party is sincere remains to be seen. Middayexpress (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about the editors having to be amoral in order to edit articles on criminals. Last I checked you can personally hate something on Wikipedia and still objectivity edit it and I have been trying my best to remove biased language, original research, and statements of fact from opinion pieces in the Piracy in Somali article. Of course like any person I have made and will make mistakes but I am reasonable and I am willing to listen. I am hoping that you are willing to do the same. Also I was willing to give his idea a try in the hope that it could result in calmer and more objective discussion but you reverted my edit less than a day after his idea was proposed. As such how can you question my sincerity when you were the one who tossed out his idea in under a day? --GrandDrake (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? Because WP:NPOV sure doesn't agree with you:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Kindly spare me the talk of "objective" discussions when your own comments on the Piracy in Somalia talk page betray you as being anything but objective on this issue. Just look at your opening phrase in the post above: For you, it's a foregone conclusion that the pirates are "criminals" and nothing else, and despite all of the emerging evidence that the story is much more complicated than that (e.g. 1, 2). I also didn't "toss out" Toddy1's idea of taking a break from editing. Actually, I got wind of it the same day you left more of that famous 'NPOV' of yours, which obviously first needed correcting. But I'll tell you what: if you stop letting your publicly-aired private convictions regarding the pirates dictate your edits, then we can talk about a genuine reconciliation. Middayexpress (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my talk page

Did you read my edit summary? WP:OR. It would not be OR if someone said this figure is more accurate than this one and we report that opinion. It is OR when that is your opinion. Please do not revert again. If you disagree take it to AN/I but you'll find that I'm correct. Justin talk 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King George V article

I have reverted your recent edit King George V article. I am not sure why are you have resorted to that, but it seems wrong to me. If you have observed that 'edit war' on the KGV article, this new editor Damwiki1 has found references to the problems of the KGV main armament unbearable, and repeatedly tried to delete the referenced sources from reliable secondary sources. Later - after having been warned by admins about edit warring - he used a sockpuppet to do the same changes again. This time he also removed to references and the cites from a reliable secondary source (Garzke and Dullin - these books and authors are amongst, if not the most definitive on the subject), and replaced them with his own conclusions from a primary source. I think you are an experienced editor to understand just how many times this violates wikipedia principles (ie. reliable sources, no OR, sockpuppetry). So I just don't get it why you are reverting to edits which by anyone's standard against the very basic principles... For this reason, I will restore the original version based on Garzke and Dullin. Please let me know if you have objections, and insist on replacing edits based on reliable secondary source with OR/Primary sources. Kurfürst (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence for your sockpuppet claim?

Which edits do you allege were done by a sockpuppet?

--Toddy1 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I forgot about the matter. Regarding the suspected sockpuppet see this one [4] (later removed from talk page..) and also this investigation. [5]. Found: Same ISP, same city, but different Internet connections, and also edit the same articles, making the same edits, with And heg being completely inactive otherwise, only seems to show up to support damwiki1.. If user has a dynamic IP, needs only to re-connect to the ISP to change his IP.

Now an anonym IP makes the very same edits (for some reason damwiki1 seems to had problems with the G+D quote about the two guns remaining operational, and constantly removed them, and replaced them with OR). Sockpuppetry if you ask me, and it ended all the sudden when I linked them in my edit comment...

PS: I saw the pic above in your talk page and I realized, I was born in the wrong part of the globe. :DKurfürst (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have exhaustively researched and referenced the issue of the number of guns in operation on Prince of Wales when she turned away. I added extensive comments on the KGV discussion page and Kurfurst continues to rely on a single source that is obviously wrong. Roskill was the RN's official historian and Bennett was another RN captain and authour who published many historical works. Despite all this Kurfurst continues to engage in this very silly and childish edit war. I have proven conclusively that PoW had at least 5 guns in action at all times even after she turned away and Y turret jammed. Kurfurst, for reasons known only to him/her continues to try and paint the KGV class in the blackest possible terms, rather than presenting a fair, balanced, and scholarly article. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mogadishu

If enemy sources are treated with the same weight as American ones I could start putting al-Qaeda press releases (some of which directly concern the Battle of Mogadishu) into the article as fact and claiming NPOV when people took offense. Given the implausibility of the claims being made in the passage under contention I feel asking for multiple sources on it is reasonable. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is an American source.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting an unchecked interview with a Somali. Enemy claims repeated verbatim by American newspapers are still a no-go. I don't understand what's so complicated about this. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusation

Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice that three other editors had developed an improved text. So saying edits nobody agreed upon is not really true.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was hardly improved, it was merely a resulting in a wall of text due to simple reason that a single fanatic was unwilling to accept a simple fact, and was trying to find excuses to remove it. Time after time. Now the silly thing contested is gone, and the article is not missing anything with that. Problem solved - do you really think that devoting some 3000 character wall of nonsense, that violated wiki principles on several accounts (OR, synthesis, primary sources etc.), much of it being the fringe theory of a single editor, was actually an improvement to the article...? Wiki says identify common points, but what was produced there was merely tit-for-tat arguements over a non-issue. Kurfürst (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Report

With regard to this report admins will not take any action unless you provide the diffs of the reverts in question. So I would suggest you redo the complaint you made and follow all the steps that are listed on the page best, BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CHANGING UKRAINIAN CITY FROM UKRAINIAN SPELLING TO RUSSIAN.... KHARKIV IS UKRAINIAN CITY AND ITS SPELLED KHARKIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.192.216 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Tryon

oh you beat me to it. Sandpiper (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and no. I don't know where they might be found. I would be interested to do so, though I wouldn't say I was quite at the stage of doing so yet. I read Hough about the victoria sinking, which quotes some of the trial, though obviously just what he thought interesting and to make his case. Then I wanted some more about Tryon, so got hold of a biography. Somewhat randomly and 110 years old, but quite interesting. Loved the comment he quoted about how rowdy MPs were behaving at some royal junket. Just got to the section on sfax, which first quotes a description of the affair by a marine officer, captain marriott. Don't know if tryons report might have been secret at the time (1897)? There is a comparison of French and British troops entering the summer palace in peking comparing them to the walrus and the carpenter in alice in wonderland, eating oysters (ie looting). Was that really what carol was getting at with the poem? There are several quotes of how pleased the government was with tryons work on the panel. As well they might, i suppose since they had no vested interest and it made the french look bad. When I get to the section in wiki's 'Tryon' about the sinking I mean to leave it referring to 'HMS victoria' for the detailed account, and just have a summary. At that point may be interesting to see what elese there is about the trial. would probably be nice to have some direct references to the transcript. The whole incident is just such a glorious ballsup worthy of many a modern campaign in the news. Sandpiper (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sfax. There is a copy of the report in Word format in the files of a Yahoo Group called predred Files > Med Fleet, 1850s-80s, letters and reports. If you want the diagrams you need to look at Public Record Office file ADM 116/27. As far as I know, there was no published version of this.

Victoria Courtmartial. This was published by HMSO in 1893 at a price of 4 shillings and 11 pence. They are not difficult to get second hand - try AJ Simmonds bookshop in Greenwich.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, just had a go at requesting access to the yahoo group. Sandpiper (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

What you want to achieve, you probably can achieve - but you have to go about it in a slightly different way.

The first article I wrote for Wikipedia was deleted, because the person I wrote about was judged not notable.

Here are a few tips, which may help you with articles:

Make sure that the article really is about the subject mentioned in the title. i.e. do not write an article about the death of John Smith, with a list of 20 other people who also died.

Make it clear in the article, why lots of people think the subject is important.

Try to use an inline citation for almost every statement. Citations can be of Iranian newspapers - in the citation you should quote a paragraph or so of the text in both Persian and English translation. Read carefully the rules on reliable sources - these rules can be your friend.

Wikipedia is neutral. That means that articles should have a neutral point of view. So try to give both sides of the story. If the police kill a man - explain it from the police side, as well as the victim's side. I know this is hard for you, but if you do it your articles will seem more believable to foreigners.

In debates and talk pages, do not answer every comment you do not like. If you leave it, you will often find that somebody else writes something helpful. Do not attack people who disagree with you - when you attack people, it makes you look like a bad person. Remember other people may see the government differently that you. For instance some people may think it is run by people who make many very bad mistakes, but that it really did win the election - such people do not support the government - but they have different beliefs about what is true that you do. If you write good articles with lots of citations, they may change their minds.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It sounds like you have misunderstood my views.

I did not add the list of the 20 killed people. Please take a look at the article's history! Originally when I wrote the article, it was just about Naser's death and nothing else.
The article originally had lots of citations but some people just came and deleted all of them! And just to inform you, Iranian newspapers are not allowed to cover the news of killing the people by the government and the foreign media have no reporters left in Iran because the Iranian regime has expelled all the foreign reporters out of the country. So there are no such RELIABLE material which you expect me to add to these kind of articles.
I did not attack anybody, I just said that everybody should respect the value of a human life! Don't you agree?--Breathing Dead (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Are you joking about explain it from the police side? First of all there is no regular police force in the mass murder of the people by the Iranian regime. The killers are plain clothes Islamic terrorists who are being supported by the government. The government never comments about any of these killings. Their official comment is that nobody is killed! Secondly, the regime has even forced the family of killed persons to not hold a funeral and not to tell anybody about the murder of their beloved ones. The government has also forced the doctors to not issue death confirmation papers with the death's reason as murder by a bullet. Do you still want a neutral point of view? Hey, we are talking about one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes in the history of mankind, how do you expect me to write an article which sounds neutral to the readers?--Breathing Dead (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not sure exactly who is reading this here, but you will find the problem is that the Iranian police also have contributors writing on wiki, and writing it their way. Anything (in any article) even the teeniest bit controversial ends up with two sides arguing. Thus there are rules to 'hold the ring' and stop articles descending into chaos. I know this can be intensely annoying when articles are patently 'untrue' or stripped of important facts, but wiki as a whole accepts the need for rules to arbitrate, and this has come to mean sources which can be cited. Unfortunately sources do not guarantee 'truth', just that someone else has already said it, so wiki can be slow catching up. Sandpiper (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brennus

About the changes I made on the article about the French battleship Brennus (1891). I saw it was a quote, but I thought somebody had tried to put a link in there and made an error. Thanks for pointing it out to me. -- Flavius T(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too quick to criticise perhaps ?

alternatively you could wait until I had finished editing it before sending me that lovely message...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - you were so quick I had the message come in as I was checking my last edit before saving lol - at least you are keeping a good eye on things ! It is probable that we share similar interests so probably speak to you soon.. (I am going to edit the Lviv, Strj and others this weekend)Chaosdruid (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv or Lvov

Lol and so we must start with getting this right.

You call it Lvov and I have been calling it Lviv

Which is right, as the Ukrainian maps I have access to put it as Lviv?

My father called it "Lvieuw" (pronunciation)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of spellings of the name in English; this is true both historically and now. Which spelling you use is a matter of personal preference.

A Google search on 15 August 2009 (with cookies blocked to prevent bias based on previous searches) for pages from the UK gives the following:

Spelling	UK only		Global		Book search, in English
Spelling	on own	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine	on own	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine
Lviv	90,800	48,600	4,640,000	2,710,000	3,040
Lvov	25,200	11,000	1,550,000	778,000	2,360
Lwow	10,300	4,430	10,300	139,000	2,840
Lwiw	497	273	36,500	23,200	584
Lemberg	18,800	3,800	1,740,000	200,000	2,190

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lvov

LVIV LVIV LVIV AND LVIV AGAIN! UNDERSTOOD? Hope you did. --68.36.49.223 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. From a quick glance there appeared to be a reasonable number of in-line citations; hence, in the interests of not swamping articles to the point that everyone ignores these templates where they are most needed to have an impact, I thought it best to remove. Needless to say, if you have specific concerns, I am happy that you reinstate, or to avoid this happening in future, you could consider tagging individual passages with "citation required" tags at the appropriate points. This may be the best approach if there are particular statements or facts that you would like to see verified, as the blanket approach is less likely to focus improvements in the desired areas. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I was going to do that if not done before this evening. Normally I remove the large headers and place inline as I edit.

It seems that there are at least two or three of us ready to start editing this so I will put inline "ref needed" next to things we need to ref and then once we have a nice prose style, peacock sentences removed and a more encyclopaedic style we can go through the "ref needed"

There have been a lot of changes since I last cleaned the doc up back in January - Ill keep posting on the Lviv discussion page as we go along so we know where we are...

Good luck guys! Chaosdruid (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could also add a "Work in progress" sub page such as this one current work on the page

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will find. Redgards.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you understand Polish? I have found very interesting book: ZYGMUNT GLOGER: Historical geography of Soil of Ancient Poland at University of Gdańsk . Source P. 22:

Lachowie. W pojęciu Nestora (powszechnem w Słowiańszczyźnie) nazwa Lachów była ogólną dla całej grupy plemion lechickich, a nazwy inne poszczególnemi. Z tego widać jasno – powiada uczony Małecki – że cała grupa narodu Lachów, to jest Lechitów, rozpadała się na dwie kategorye: 1) Lachów z poszczególnemi nazwami: Polan, Łęczycan, Mazowszan i Pomorzan, oraz Lachów, poprzestających na tem jednem nazwisku. Takimi zaś byli Lachowie małopolscy, zamieszkujący krainę krakowską, sandomierską i lubelską, nad górną Wisłą, od rzeki Pilicy i Radomki, po Karpaty, San i Bug. Małecki w znakomitej swojej książce o Lechitach bada na podstawie Nestora, jak daleko mogły sięgać ku południo-wschodowi ziemie Lachów w wieku X. Nad Lachami tymi panować musieli książęta szczepowi, którzy bądź niepodlegli, bądź pod przewagą Piastów polskich, a niekiedy władców morawskich i czeskich pozostawali. Z kolei przyszła na południo-wschodzie przewaga Rusi. Nestor pisze, iż Włodzimierz, wielki książę kijowski, w roku 981 podjął wyprawę „na Lachy (tak nazywa Nestor zawsze ziemie Lachów) i pobrał grody ich: Przemyśl, Czerwień i inne, i osadził je swymi wojami”. Tak więc (mówi Małecki) do pierwotnych Lachów należała, podług Nestora, i kraina grodów czerwieńskich. Bolesław Chrobry odebrał je książętom ruskim i przyłączył znowu do Polski, ale gdy wielki ten król umarł, książęta Jarosław i Mścisław zebrali liczne woje i znowu poszli „na Lachy”, a zawojowawszy ziemię z grodami, uprowadzili, z niej mnogich Lachów i między siebie ich rozdzieliwszy, Jarosław osadził swoich nad rzeką Rosią. Grody zaś czerwieńskie, zatrzymane i osiedlone przez Ruś, nazwane zostały Rusią Czerwoną.

P 33: Ze słów Nestora sądzić trzeba, że kraina grodów czerwieńskich po roku 981 należała do Lachów, czyli do Polski. [...] Ziemia zaś, zdobyta w roku powyższym przez Włodzimierza na Lachach, była to późniejsza Ruś Czerwona. Mówili zatem prawdę Ibrahim i Al-Bekri o państwie Mieszka (sięgającem od Baltyku i Odry po grody czerwieńskie), że był to „kraj wielki między słowiańskimi”.

Paweł5586 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Stock Exchange Scandal

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:

Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814,
- That is true
although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
- but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
- Where is the evidence?
Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
- Some historians believe = weasel words
In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
- Citation
- Who was Charles Grenville?
- Why is this of any significance?
- What kind of bias might he had have?
By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
- he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...

Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

English

If you supposedly don't speak English you wrote that very well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Cochrane Bias

Please see what I forwarded onto other editors.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Content forwarded:

Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:

Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814,
- That is true
although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
- but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
- Where is the evidence?
Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
- Some historians believe = weasel words
In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
- Citation
- Who was Charles Grenville?
- Why is this of any significance?
- What kind of bias might he had have?
By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
- he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...

Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Forcefullness

Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice that three other editors had developed an improved text. So saying edits nobody agreed upon is not really true.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was hardly improved, it was merely a resulting in a wall of text due to simple reason that a single fanatic was unwilling to accept a simple fact, and was trying to find excuses to remove it. Time after time. Now the silly thing contested is gone, and the article is not missing anything with that. Problem solved - do you really think that devoting some 3000 character wall of nonsense, that violated wiki principles on several accounts (OR, synthesis, primary sources etc.), much of it being the fringe theory of a single editor, was actually an improvement to the article...? Wiki says identify common points, but what was produced there was merely tit-for-tat arguements over a non-issue. Kurfürst (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't be as forceful and commanding in your bossiness.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Cochrane Bias Again

BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I see you have not responded.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.

For what is there to respond?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take notice RE: WP:ANI against you

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE.

A WP:ANI has been filed against you here: [6]. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue involves your work at world domination.
Specifically it's alleged that you

Reverted twice (2x) against the consensus; and
Introduced WP:Original research & a WP:Neologism.

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in continuing a dispute with you. If there is a way to resolve our disaggreement - great.

I believe you've Reverted the article against the consensus - that's not permitted by WP.
I think you hail from the former Russian Empire, or Soviet Union - so maybe you know about a Russian concept of "world domination." But this is the English Encyclopedia. So we do not have that concept here.
If we can solve our disagreement here - great. I'll drop the issue from WP:AHI.
Let me know if we can come to an agreement together (without the help of an Administrator).

Thanks, --Ludvikus (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS1: More specifically, you might be from Ukraine (Dnepropetrovsk). I still cannot get used to NOT saying "The Ukraine." --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: Is "Toddy" a he or a she? (I'm just curious). --Ludvikus (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Good news! Thanks for working things out with me. I asked that the WP:ANI be closed, and it was, because I said we worked things out: [7]. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Got your message. Thanks. This is an extremely controversial article and subject. But it degrades over time - even though there are many who protect it against vandalism. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made heavy changes to the content of the opening paragraph! I'm an expert in the field - I own almost everything important about this subject. I'm respected by the community in that area. I made many contributions to almost all the related article - even images. It's really very complicated stuff. So it's hard to write about. It's a challenge. And it's very easy to make a mistake. But I've been studying this stuff for years. Most people think it's just a "book." But it's not. In 1903 it was a series of articles in Znamya (newspaper). Have a nice Sunday - by the way, my family is from Ukraine - Drohobych, to be exact. My maternal grandfather owned three oil wells in the nearby town. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World domination

I like the image. Good work linking it there.

But does WP allow images on a DAB page? I never so a DAB with a picture.

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not forbidden, though they are discouraged. Given the history of the image and of this page, I think it appropriate.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images and templates. --Toddy1 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beckwith Company

Please join the discussion on the Talk page before you simply revert. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm pleased to have you raise your objections. But please slow down. I'll do my best to address all your concern. But I have to feed my family now. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get time, please could you also reconstruct/improve the article on American Defense Society, as this article has no citations at all.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come you don't pay attention to the above? You don't give me a chance to do what you ask for by removing the "disputed" material. Please put it back. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So there was a big misunderstanding. I'm extremely glad that we're on good terms. I was worried about us being able to work together. But it looks like there may have been a big misunderstanding. I'm sorry for what happened before, a few days ago, and I did not mean to upset you. Can you forgive me, please? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's {{Cleanup}} this stuff about Racism. You must have misunderstood. Give me the EXACT diff where you think it happened please.

PS: I do think you do great technical work at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Defense Society

I like your Flagging very much. In that regard I think you're doing Wikipedia a great service. Good work. Keep it up. As soon as I get a chance I'll try to supply the in-line references to the above article. Have a nice day, Wikipedian. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A special barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		You did an excellent job of Editing the Library card format at The Beckwith Company. I award you this Barnstar even though I don't agree with you on its Content editing. I award this Barnstar because to deserve it, even though you might think I'm bribing you with it. Ludvikus (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job regarding the appearance and layout of the article. So I'm giving you this Barstar. But we still need to work things out regarding the "R" word. --Ludvikus (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your graphic work on The Beckwith Company

You deserve do deserve "The Graphic Designer's Barnstar]." --Ludvikus (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		You did, in my opinion, an excellent job on the layout of the Card catalog list, and I wish to express my sincere appreciation for that work by awarding you this artistic credit of recognition Barndtar. Ludvikus (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Assuming your edit summary here is not intended as a provocation, I figured I'd point out: this is simply a difference between US and UK spelling; neither is erroneous. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most contributions to this article come from people who would appear to speak either Ukrainian or Polish when they are at home, I assumed that the edit made yesterday that changed the spelling was not intended to change the language of the article from the present mixture of English and transliterated-Ukrainian into American; I just assumed it was a well-meaning error by a Polish or Ukrainian speaker who genuinely believed that he/she was correcting a spelling error.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kiev

This really isn't helpful in the slightest. Can you please read through the request in full and understand why we are doing the statistic collection first, before reviving all the transliteration/population/language decrees/etymological arguments we've heard a hundred times before? If you could retract your comment for now and leave it until after the statistics have been collected and discussed it would be a massive help. Knepflerle (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo has moved the comments to User_talk:Taivo#Kyiv Survey Comments Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships of the line...

Hi Toddy1, Thanks. It was bugging me, and I tried to fix it but ran into problems. I clearly didn't have the syntax right. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sayeed

Hi. I take your point about need for precise wording here. But, if you don't mind, I also find the present choice of words ("fight", etc) non-neutral and thus unencyclopedic. So I've come back at it and trust you won't object to a compromise. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new suggested wording is fine.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PD Mainelli Michael 26 02 08 (DO NOT DELETE).jpg

Interested to known why you think the seven days before it is nominated for deletion is not enough. I have left a note on the image talk page just to note that the user has actually had three weeks so far to find a source and licence. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was inappropriate for you to delete his equivalent of a hang on notice.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just removed copy of text from file page I accidently pasted with my message above. Also note it was not me that removed the hang-on notice. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pork pie

Hi! I really like the Pork pie Template you've created, and have used it more than once. Do you like the changes I've made to it? --AFriedman (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. But I have changed one thing back - sincerity. Promoting sincerity by spreading pork pies is humorous.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I observe kashrut, so I'm not very familiar with the culture of pork eating. Is there some type of joke here you would like to explain further? BTW, I'm using this template to make jokes about keeping Kosher, from an insider's perspective. Just thought you might be interested in something you might not expect. --AFriedman (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Pie is cockney slang for lie.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I get it. Well, "sincerity" worked for one of the User talk pages I posted on, for a somewhat different reason. In American English, pork also means national spending for local projects, which is associated with bills submitted by U.S. Congresspeople who would like to fund projects in their district. Often, pork is tacked onto a bill that is supposed to be about something else. This is looked down on as corrupt and wasteful, even though I don't necessarily think it is. The User in question, (User:CordeliaNaismith) did a wonderful job of editing the article about her favorite U.S. Senate candidate, whom she supported because she found his public service record inspiring. He's got a squeaky-clean corruption record and pork was the last thing on her mind. She is a wonderful person, committed to social justice off-wiki, and an outstanding contributor to human rights articles on Wikipedia. --AFriedman (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Thanks for your note, I need to treat tables slightly differently. I will look into it. Rich Farmbrough 08:17 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. As someone who does tables of information, I appreciate you help on this.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some explanation on the letter Г ;)

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Talk:Anatoliy Hrytsenko.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Day the musician page

Thanks for creating the disambiguation so that Stephen Day the musician page is somewhat accessible. Why does a short article about a politician end up being the default? In any case could something similar to the following be added 'For the musician from California, see Stephen Day'

This article is about the British Member of Parliament. For the US congressman from Illinois, see Stephen A. Day.

Also the posted article seems to be an old version and is also listed as an orphan. Can the later version be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmi222 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the posted article is an old version, you should restore the more up to date version yourself.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr and Yulia and Van Kooten en De Bie

Can you please tell me we are seeing Oleksandr Tymoshenko and wife together on this pictures (starting at #5)? I'm quite sure it is him, but you might recognise a Dnipropetrovsk man better then me :) Are Natalia Korolevska and Yulia Tymoshenko good friends (?); cause she seems more photographed with Yulia then Yulia with other BYuT MP's? Or is Nata pulling a "Wethouder Hekking" (as shown at 3 minutes and 45 seconds into the video)? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Trusty

Do you happen to know anything about HMS Trusty, which is referenced on the [HMS Captain|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_(1869)] page as a turreted floating battery? I'm having a discussion about it on another forum, and thought you might know more than I did... The Land (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start: Aetna class ironclad floating battery. If you want details on the Trusty trial of 1861 look at DK Brown's Warrior to Dreadnought, which devotes over a page to it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy new year. Keep looking forward in 2010!
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Tihipko

I have just written the following text:

"He is an Ukrainian politician. His original name is Сергій Тiгiпко, which is written in Latin alphabet as Serhiy Tihipko (Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, German, English, etc.) or Sergei Tigipko (Russian form). Letter [г] means [h] in Ukrainian, and [g] in Russian. So, for example, Адольф Гітлер is pronounced as Adolf Hitler in Ukrainian, and Adolf Gitler in Russian.

By the way, Tihipko's first name is Сергій (Ukrainian Serhiy), not Сергей (Russian Sergey or Sergei).

See: Our Campaigns - Candidate - Serhiy Tihipko

"Trudova Ukraina" elects a new chairman - Serhiy Tihipko

Ukraine on the Eve of the January 2010 Presidential - Serhiy Tihipko

Rzeczpospolita - Serhij Tihipko

Tihipko: Ukrajna szenvedett a legtöbbet a válság miatt - Szerhij Tihipko

Die Welt -Schicksalstag für die Ukraine - Sergej Tihipko

The FINANCIAL - Tihipko Not Interested In NBU Governorship - Serhii Tihipko, etc.

So, it is a reason to change the name to Tihipko."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sergei_Tigipko, please.

-- Mibelz (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2010 (CET)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Tigipko

Looks like a Svoboda activist has moved the Sergey Tigipko article to the transliterated version Serhiy Tihipko. He completely ignored the move discussion on the talkpage as well. If he would've read the talkpage then he would've found out that not only is Sergey (or Sergei) Tigipko the most common name in English media, but the candidate himself uses Sergey Tigipko on his English language website and on his English Facebook page! So the Svoboda activist is ignoring the two main guidelines for naming articles: uses what is most popular and what the subject prefers! I tried to move the article back, but it wouldn't let me. What can we do now? --Tocino 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE POLICY ON MOVE DISCUSSIONS IS THAT THEY LAST 7 DAYS. I have therefore moved it back to the original name, so that the move discussion continue. I have posted a message on the guy's talk page.

Do you think that there should be a change of article name for the articles on Anatoliy Hrytsenko and Inna Bohoslovska? 'Hrytsenko' in reality spells his name Grytsenko, whilst 'Bohoslovska' in reality spells her name Bogoslovska.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki laughter!

Please read this funny new article! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pandy

Hi. Thank you for your message. The reason I changed the article was because I found it hard to believe that they would suddenly "realise" that filming the episodes would allow them to be repeated, as it seems such an obvious thing. However, as you say, this is what the cite says, so perhaps it wasn't at the time. Thanks for correcting me. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style Numbers

Regarding my edits to Invincible class aircraft carrier, I had blindly reverted, thanks for the pointer. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boulanger

The only thing that is bizarre here is your comment. That Boulanger was widely believed to be planning a coup is such a cliche of French history that it may well count as common knowledge. That he probably wasn't, in fact, complicates things for sure. There is, any case, no point in putting these tags in the lede. The lede summarises the article. The article content is what needs to be cited, per MOS, not the lede. However, questioning the unquestionable is just daft. And yes, it's bizarre. If you want citation, it takes a few seconds to find one [8] ("observers everywhere were predicting an imminent Boulangist dictatorship"). How was this going to come about do you think? There was no election for the position of 'dictator' was there? Boulanger had brought on board the Bonapartists, and both Bonapartes had, of course, come to power by coups, so that's exactly what was expected. Citations are useful, but adding demands implies that a statement is dubious, so I think they are better simply removed when the statement is unquestionable. It's like putting "ciatation needed" next to the statement "Michelangelo was an artist". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the book you cite says "observers everywhere..." - a weasel phrase - what observers? If it is so obvious and common sense, then please find something that says who predicted that Boulanger would attempt a coup.

"Michelangelo was an artist" does not need a citation, but "Michaelangelo was widely believed to be planning a coup" requires both a citation, and clarification of who believed it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You spectacularly miss the point. The reference Michelangelo was an analogy, and the "weasel words" concept applies to Wikipedia prose, not to reliable sources. Scholars are allowed to make general assertions on the basis of their expertise. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars quote sources in their works. Propagandists generally don't. The weasel words concept works very well when you apply it to books and newspaper/magazine articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so obvious, etc. then instead of explaining to me what a fool I am, explain who thought Boulanger was planning a coup, and put some sources in to back it up.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Atlas (1860)

Hi, I noticed that you created HMS Defiance (1861) and used Battleships in Transition, the Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860 as a source. I've just created HMS Atlas (1860) and wondered whether you could use that source to add to the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_conversions

Hello, I am contacting you because you are a military history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the convert template is inappropriate. The nominal calibre and the actual calibre are frequently not the same. This applies to both to weapons designated in terms of English units and to those designated in metric units. In some cases it is easy to see what the answer should be:

12pdr (76.2mm) or less precisely (76mm)
12in (305mm)

But if we are going to give the actual calibre in millimetres after weapons designated in English units, why not do the same for weapons designed in French (metric) units

125mm (121.94mm)

Also, what weapons where the calibre used in the designation was measured groove to groove, surely the best calibre to quote in millimetres should be measured land to land

0.303in (7.7mm)

Note that if these were the rules, then we would by default have said that the actual calibre was the number in brackets in millimetres. This of course goes contrary to the principle of quoting in both English and French measures. Should we quote as follows?

4.7in (120mm/4.724in)

It would be a very good idea if people did not replace hard coded conversions with the convert template. It seems that the convert template is perfect for cod-metrication, producing such horrors as steam pressures of 60 pounds (27 kg) per square inch or an energy of 10,000 feet (3,000 m)-tons. There are also problems with conversions from knots because the conversion factors are not constant. The convert template assumes that a nautical mile is 1 nautical mile (6,076.12 ft) (1852m), but for English measurements before 1970, the correct conversion factor is 6080ft.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryon and the sinking of HMS Victoria

This section has been moved to Talk:HMS Victoria (1887)#Tryon and the sinking of HMS Victoria.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Trafalgar Orbat

I appreciate that you can't find evidence to support Pietje96's assertions. However, the article was protected to head off the edit-warring (see Talk:Battle of Trafalgar#Commanders for a more detailed note). I can't change the article myself and remain uninvolved, but protection will expire in three days at which point, if no contradictory sources have surfaced, you'll be free to correct the article yourself. You can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to request another admin to make the edit, but you'll need to demonstrate consensus to be successful. For a humorous (if sarcastic) view of admins and page protection, see m:The Wrong Version :) Hope this helps, and sorry for the inconvenience, EyeSerene^talk 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Interesting photos on your userpage btw; just been reading/looking at them :) EyeSerene^talk 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jutland Documentary

A while back you mentioned a two-part Jutland documentary. I went through my files and found a copy, Jutland: Clash of the Dreadnoughts. These are the salient points from that documentary:

Queen Mary: Profusion of shell and of cordite cases (with their lids on by the look of things). Doesn't prove anything.

Defence: An open door on a turret, opened and not blown open. Quite part from the fact that '"Defence wasn't even a battle cruiser and had a very different ammunition storage layout, the open door doesn't prove, as is suggested, that the door was left open during action.

Invincible: The narrator states, "The final critical factor in her demise, and the demise of others, was cordite handling". The technical advisor, Bill Jurens, then says, "It seems to have propagated relatively slowly kind of daisy chain fashion in some sort of arrangement. That would indicate, again, inadequacies in propellant handling or storage, and sometimes just pure bad luck." The narration does not square with Jurens' opinion. I got in touch with him straight after re-watching the documentary, and he provided me with this summary of causes which he's already put on the internet somewhere:

“

a) Lack of armor (see also "e" below...)

b) Poor choice of propellant.

c) Poor storage and handling of propellant.

d) Insufficient venting.

e) Tactical misapplication of the ships involved. and

f) Plain bad luck.

”

--Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type 23 Frigate

How is this infomation out of date? Rademire (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Montrose, the main elements of the update seem to have been:

Improvements to sensors and propulsion. (Mentioned in Source 2)
Seawolf mid-life update (Mentioned in Source 1)
New command system, DNA(2) - the Montrose was the first Type 23 to get this. (Mentioned in Sources 1 & 2)
Replacement of 30mm DS30B with the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun (Mentioned in Source 2)

See:

royalnavy.mod.uk Navy Frigate to Get New Electronic 'Brain' This mentions the first two.
Warship Technology

I believe that they modernised the Sutherland before the Montrose - I don't know the details. You need to look through articles in defence journals and navy/company press releases on their websites on the various modernisations/refits. Also try Hansard and Jane's Fighting Ships.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the source you are using website.lineone.net/~david-carrington is a self-published website, and gives the date of its information as 2001.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know its from 2001, however I am not updating wepon systems or sonars or ECSs just making it more easy to the eye to read. Some people wouldnt have a clue 2 quad harpoon launchers hold 8 missiles (even though the clue is in the name hehehe) or that a VLS on the T-23 holds 32 missiles, or that the T-23s 4 torpedo tubes holds 5 reloads in the mag (6 x 4 = 24 torpedoes). few people under stand this. but you are right, I do know those 30mms were replaced and I am in the middle of cleaning those sort of things up, but there is so much to go through its takes time : ). But please edit it your self (but dont revert what I put down as upgrades dont effect the mumber of missiles or torpedoes they carry) is will also save time if you edit what you know hehehe

thanks for your concern, glad to know people care Rademire (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot IP at Dnipropetrovsk, Rivne, Kharkiv, etc.

I noticed that you warned an IP about nationalistic vandalism at Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Rivne, etc. a few days ago. (S)he vandalized those pages again today. If you're an admin, could you put semi-protection on those Ukrainian pages to prevent him deleting the Russian alternate names again? My mother-in-law in Dnipropetrovsk told us last week that one of President Yanukovych's first acts as president was to make Russian an official regional language in eastern Ukraine. Since my in-laws (and nearly everyone else in Dnipro) only speaks Russian, she was pretty happy. (Taivo (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh my. I just noticed that all your photos are from Dnipro. So you probably know the actual linguistic situation in Dnipro much better than I do--I just visit Dnipro and my in-laws for a couple of weeks every year--you live there. (Taivo (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I got your note. Thank you. I placed a note on User:DDima's talk page. (S)he is an admin and interested in Ukrainian affairs. (Taivo (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So did Yanu's first acts as president was to make Russian an official regional language in eastern Ukraine? Cause early March he promise to initiate legislation to raise the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and vowed that action to that end would start "very soon indeed" and that Ukraine will not have second state language. Did I miss something or did this mother-in-law was lied too? This is important for some wiki-articles about the Russian language.

Since when does everybody in Dnipropetrovsk can speak only Russian while people in Yevpatoria can also speak Ukrainian? I presume they understand and can speak it if needed (as in Yevpatoria), or did I miss something again . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any doubts that my mother-in-law reported accurately what she was told, but, of course, that doesn't guarantee that she was told something accurately. I'm sure that what she heard was a word-of-mouth version of the Kyiv Post article you posted. Thanks for the link. The great majority of people in Dnipro speak Russian as their first language, but the kids, of course, speak Ukrainian as a second language since they learn it in school and a lot of adults have a passive knowledge. But on the streets all that is used is Russian--one doesn't hear any Ukrainian actually in use. And the majority of advertising and signage in businesses in Dnipro is also in Russian. Of course, the politically incorrect thing to write is that Russian and Ukrainian are really just divergent dialects of a single language anyway and there is a lot of inherent mutual intelligibility between them (like Scots and English). It would be hard to say that anyone who speaks "only" Russian couldn't generally understand Ukrainian and vice versa. And since a lot of TV and film in Ukraine is in Russian, there are a lot of Ukrainians who understand Russian as well (although many won't admit it publically). There is a lot of passive knowledge of both languages throughout the population, so to say that someone speaks only Russian or Ukrainian can be accurate, but it is not accurate to say that they understand only Ukrainian or Russian. My father-in-law refuses to admit that he understands Ukrainian (but he does), my wife admits that she understands Ukrainian (but can't speak it), my step-daughter speaks both fluently, my university students and professorial contacts in Rivne spoke both fluently, and I'm sure there were other adults in Rivne who spoke only Ukrainian (but understood Russian, whether they admitted it or not). Language is a very touchy subject in Ukraine, but the linguistic facts are fairly straightforward. These city articles in Wikipedia really do need to include both Ukrainian and Russian variants--especially since American readers will be more familiar with the names in Russian in almost all cases. (Taivo (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Strange my Ukrainian friends tell me that language is not a touchy subject in Ukraine; of course I don't live there or have a 100 Ukrainian friends... And the myth that in "In Lviv nobody will admit they speak Russian", well the people in Lviv I asked did not say so...

Kyiv Post is a handy way to keep up-to-date with Ukrainian news; although it is a lot more BYuT friendly then Party of Regions friendly...

Of course Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) must be upheld, but I tend to leave that to others cause they do usually take care of it... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "touchy subject" I didn't mean that all individuals found it to be touchy in private conversation, but that the topic is laced with minefields in ways that you don't find in other countries with long-standing linguistic stability. For example, the Kyiv Post article you linked to in the next section shows how what language the potential PM speaks is important--even tough nearly everyone would understand him perfectly well if he only spoke Russian. After all, he has risen to his current post without using Ukrainian at all apparently. When I asked my students in Rivne (about 100 of them, all of whom grew up in Rivne oblast) who understood Russian, only about 20 of them actually raised their hands. But when I showed a film in Russian, they all understood it. They didn't complain at all about listening to the film in Russian, but they regularly wouldn't admit to understanding it in a public setting. Privately, they all said, "Yes, I can understand Russian". But when asked to raise their hands in a group... There's definitely a "public" versus "private" divide on the issue. And in eastern Ukraine I had a number of experiences just using Ukrainian politeness words (budlaska, dyakuyu, etc.) in both public and private settings that illustrate the sociolinguistic tenderness quite well. It's a fascinating topic and has implications to such emerging language situations as Scotland, where Scots and English are about as divergent as Ukrainian and Russian, but a linguistic debate over which dialect to use is incipient. And I'm not even touching on the issue of Ukrainian versus Russian feelings among the Ukrainian diaspora. That's another whole 'nother can of worms. :) (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I wish Ukrainians where a bit more mellow about this. But as you said more languages in 1 country always seems to lead to tensions (also in Canada and Belgium I noticed). Thanks for the info! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New PM can't speak Ukrainian?

Have you ever heard him speak Ukrainian? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live

Where I live is my business. Making statements about it on Wikipedia is a breach of my privacy.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to offend, but when your user page is filled with photos from one city, you have already breached your own privacy and it's not a violation of WP:OUTING to simply note that fact. You are clearly an expert on many aspects of Dnipro and I respect that. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

За все, что вы знаете, я мог бы стать тем человеком, который сидел за вами в самолет в Вену на последней поездке. Ни один из нас никогда не узнает.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

This bridge on your userpage looks very familliar for me. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reporting 173.54.99.72 for vandalism. :) (Taivo (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Para Normalnykh

Promise me that they are not homosexuals, lesbians, drug-users, etc., etc., and do not support any of such movements (e.g. "Drug-free" and others) and I assure You - they will appear in Wikipedia. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are a heterosexual boy-girl group, who campaigned for the conservative candidate in the presidential election campaign.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolayev

My only problem here is that you have two links leading to the exact same article; one direct and one via a redirect. I'm not quite sure how this needs to be cleaned up (you obviously disliked my variant, which is fine by me), but cleaned up it needs to be. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 21:01 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

Ukrainian naming

I'd welcome any comments you might have about User talk:Taivo/Ukrainian names. (Taivo (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Garik 11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TB!

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Mariah-Yulia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About your favorite subject, btw I think Yulia is better looking then her daughter. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:13, 19 April 2010

IP naming edits

I initiated a conversation here; please let me and AN3 know about this if the problem recurs. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos in Ukraine's parliament

Please, can you halp me in expanding article: Chaos in the Ukrainian parliament during a debate over the extension of the lease on a Russian naval base 2010 before it is deleted? Pleckaitis (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this minor incident needs an article of its own.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition members on your TV?

Kyiv Post claims the Ukrainian political opposition is getting squeezed out of news broadcasts. Have you noticed this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed this.

People who make TV programmes in Ukraine have a big problem. There are about 50 channels available. So if the TV programmes show things that veiwers regard as neither important nor interesting, the veiwers just press a button and move to another channel. When Mrs Timoshenko was prime minister she was important. Now she is not.

If Mrs Timoshenko feels she is not on TV enough, maybe she could do a cookery show.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, this puts thing in perspective for me. I remember a Dutch man who told me he found it strange he never saw Yanukovych on TV the few weeks he was in Ukraine but that he did saw Tymoshenko everyday. I never saw him either on Ukrainian television, but then again I do not watch much (Ukrainian) TV. If Yanukovych would present a cookery show it would be Yanukovych pretending he made meals who in fact where cooked by Akhmetov ! I hope the "y" on your keyboard will be fixed soon File:Navy.gif!
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral class battleship

Hi there; I note that you have deleted a great deal of the text here, with a comment that it would be too difficult to correct, and should be started afresh. Are you sure that this is the best approach? Obviously your observation about Hotchkiss mountings is valid, but this is only one picture; I am not certain that the text is intrinsically non-salvagable. Obviously I have not reverted; we have both been here for several years and need not war over articles; but as someone who spent some long time editing articles on Victorian ironclads (although not much time on this one) I would appreciate hearing your views. When you have time. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the talk page of the editor whose editing you were questioning; perhaps I should have gone there first. But I would make the point that while what you say to him is correct, and could well be inseted into the article, what the article actually said is not, by and large, contradicted by your data. Your data merely expands it. Obviously a re-write is wholly practicable. But in my view so is an expansion. I will leave it to the two of you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did try correcting what was written, but gave up for the reason stated. In any case, trying to help someone learn ought to be a goood strategy.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I'd removed the metric measurements from the page. I apologize.SpellingGuru (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substing Welcome Templates

Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He means that instead of typing, for example, {{Welcome}}, you should be typing {{subst:Welcome}}. There are many (and mostly technical) reasons for substituting the templates; if you are interested, you can read more at Help:Substitution. If not, just do as the man says; he's right :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 20:47 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members EditorialProject news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Edward HeathLegit. I'll dig up some citations. - Schrandit (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members EditorialProject news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members EditorialProject news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]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 19:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Battle of LissaHi Toddy, I noticed that you readded the hatnote on Battle of Lissa (1866) after I had removed it. In your edit summary, you stated that the reason I provided was not true. I was quoting an established Wikipedia guideline, namely the one prohibiting disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. Is there something specific about Battle of Lissa (1866) that keeps this guideline from applying or do you take issue with the guideline itself? Neelix (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I wrote what I did because I misunderstood your reason - I thought that it meant that the link did not work, or something. I am sorry if I appeared rude; I did not mean to be.Not everybody is completely familiar with 19th Century history. Some people will search for the Battle of Lissa in 18-something, and when they find it, realise that they may not be where they want to be, so the "hatnote" is still useful.It is not obvious from the guideline that the "hatnote" should be removed in this case. If something is obviously useful, and not obviously against the guideline, that seems a good reason to keep it.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi Toddy,Do not worry; I was not offended by your edit summary. Edit summaries have to be fairly short and may often come across as curt when that was not the intention. As we do not appear to agree on this issue, I have initiated a discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors can add their input. Please feel free to contribute there.Happy editing,Neelix (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members EditorialProject news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010) Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia 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) 20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]French ironclad RedoutableI was going to flesh out this article, but if you'd prefer to do it yourself, that's OK by me. I'd just as soon not bump heads over it. Do you actually have a copy of Saibene's book? I have the articles that he did on the ship, but the book is hard to get.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]I have his book, which I bought when it was first published, I also have Roche's dictionary, and a book called Cent ans de cuirassés français, plus King's book, various Brassey's Naval Annuals, etc.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm jealous! I'm trying to borrow a copy of Cent ans and I've seen a copy of Roche's dictionary, but there aren't any copies of Saibene's book available for loan here in the US. What's King's book? I've been writing articles on many of the older French ironclads and have only now gotten up to the later ones like Redoutable. Feel free to add any useful information from Roche or the other books to them. I haven't been able to write anything on the first generation of ironclads for lack of sources, but maybe once, and if, I get Cent ans I'll be able to do so. Of course, you could do so yourself, which would be just fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Warships and Navies of the World, by Chief-Engineer JW King USN, 1881. You can buy Cent ans on French Amazon. Unfortunately Amazon is not joined up, so US and UK Amazon have no knowledge of books that Fremch Amazon sells.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]REOk, thanks for help--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Marine mammals and sonarToddy, thanks for the support at Talk:HMS Enterprise (H88). If you think that's poor use of references, just take a look at Marine_mammals_and_sonar#Naval_sonar-linked_incidents. I honestly don't know where to begin. For example the reference to support the first entry just says "According to newspapers, the US Navy was in the area coincident with the 1963 strandings". That's as strong as the "link" gets. The one linked to HMS Kent is a report from the "Animal Welfare Institute" that says (I kid you not) "Kent is equipped with active sonar that was allegedly turned on for five minutes three days before the stranding". Any advice on the way ahead gratefully received. I worry that wading in to delete badly referenced stuff here will attract a certain amount of vilification from those who believe "military bad; dolphins good". Shem (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Shem - Wikipedia contains a mixture of good stuff and utter crap. I have noticed that sometimes when people add good stuff, others wade in and delete it because they do not see the point of having articles with proper citations for points, or because they have a thing against lists and tables, or because the information that real users want to be able to look up in real life is outside the understanding of some people.With respect of active sonar and marine mammals, a "link" can be claimed to any incident in the last 60 years, since some warship somewhere will have been using active sonar within a few days of the incident. The article can quite correctly claim a "link" - though not a causal link.I have made a small improvement to the article. Jezebel was certainly not renamed SOSUS. I deleted a citation that had no connection with the sentence next to it.The obvious thing to do with the big table, would be to add columns for each of the different contributory factors. This would be a lot of work. It would be best to develop the improved version in a sandbox. The argument in favour of this, is that the current table is grossly misleading. I will leave it to all the wikilawyers to come up with reasons against it - though there will be many.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the advice. My inclination is to stay well away while abhorring the whole thing. Perhaps later... Shem (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010 Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion" To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re: Battle of Lissa (1866) I will try to be more careful next time. BTW, I don't have a habit of going around and deleting links that no longer works. Thanks for a friendly warning. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] That is OK.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] /* Nikolayev (Ukraine) */ Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Happy Holidays! Thanks for your new years wishes, same to you and З Різдвом Христовим! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Last Wednesday I have been “approved“ by “VIA - Vrijwillige Internationale Aktie” (a Dutch organisation who sends and “chaperons” long term volunteers to foreign countries) to become a long term volunteer in Ukraine. I passed there in-take :). VIA’s sister organization “SVIT-Ukraine” is now looking for a project I can work in (in Ukraine). SVIT is based Artemivsk (the city in Donetsk Oblast; there better known as Artemovsk I presume) so my path in 2011 I might end up there :). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] I am baffled. Your country is just across the North Sea from the Third World, and yet you want to send volunteers to an advanced modern industrialised country like Ukraine. Maybe you are looking for somewhere pleasant to live?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] I just want to see Oleh Tyahnybok on TV every day File:Navy.gif. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010 Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awardsContest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Talkback Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page. Message added 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply] Talkback Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. Message added 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply] Just like Tina I don't know what a "CВИНЯ КАЦАПСЬКА" is.... but it didn't look polite I removed some offence comments on your talkpage a little while ago because Kostyantin Zhevago told me they where offensive... Interesting that Tina Karol and Google Translate have something in common: both can't swear in Ukrainian... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#IP editor 24.0.177.155.2F70.111.133.184 regarding the issue. If you look at his talk page you will know what it is about.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I found someone to translate. I have posted the translation on Wikiquette alerts. --Toddy1 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, great that Andriy Shkil was able to find some time to translate it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] No, it was not him; it was a pretty girl who studies architecture. (She used to be blonde, now she is brunette.) It is a long time since I have bothered to look at the Kyiv Post. I assume the claim that he graduated in 1997 is a typographical error, and means 1987. There have been some improvements to the newspaper - they have admitted what a great job the president is doing.[9] Perhaps the legal action that someone has taken against them in London has led to an improvement in journalistic standards. Incidentally, if you are spending time with politicians, why don't you suggest to them that Ukraine should copy English laws on newspapers telling the truth. England has very good laws on this.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sorry the politicians I knew have disappeared today... Hence the Rada is now 8 deputies short. They may have become architecture students... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Seems Andriy Shkil first became a journalist and then went back to school (again) to study Journalism... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Bunching As far as I can tell, the bunching problem had been solved (and here). A fairly recent development. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Facebook chat is not a reliable source I posted a reply to your question about the reliability of that Economist information at Kiev on User_Talk:Sanya3. --Taivo (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Correction on Al-Mukhtar Abbas the Knowledge Seeker: Hello Toddy, I'll have to study up the procedures for listing references, and looking up versions, because I believe you are mistaken in your impression that I added my own commentary to the Al-Mukhtar page. I am a student of the history of Islam since the age of 18, when I realized that there was a lot of misrepresentation about this part of our human heritage and middle-eastern history. So my updates were merely historical fact that is considered common-knowledge in a large part of the world, with over 100 Million people. Inaccuracies have to have a way of being eliminated, but to call the corrections of a knowledgeable person "commentary" cannot be wikipedia's means of gathering information and forming a compendium of human knowledge. The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011 Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia" To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] And the name is? You recently posted a reference for the Fireflash missile. How do they refer to the company? Fairy Fireflash? de Havilland Fireflash? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] No, I did not. I posted a reference for the de Havilland Firestreak. Chapter 13 of the book is entitled Project Blue Jay, and is from page 203 to 211. This chapter makes no reference to Fairy. It does refer to de Havilland Propellers. I don't know much about the Fairey Fireflash. The wikipedia article on it says that it was a radio beam-riding missile. If that was the case, I don't see what it has to do with Firestreak.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Dmytro Firtash is now an editor on wikipedia! Which is clear to see in this edit. The IP Address was in Kyiv. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Edit warring @ Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig You have been edit warring at Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. Please stop or you will be reported and could be blocked. Please take you grievance to the talk page and discuss. This is your only warning. FYI I have also left this message at the talk page for user talk:82.43.153.113. Bjmullan (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Inna The dates were announced on her Official website, @ 'TOURS' section :-) I can't cite the same source twice, can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innano1 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] National Maritime Museum collaboration Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM. Have a look when you get a moment! Regards, The Land (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I can't I did not add the information, I just copy edited it, though originally I was going to remove it per WP:OR. I have fixed the cite 7 after finding out that Billboard does not have Stan's artist ID yet. You will need to speak to this user if you need citations, though this user appears to be incapable of correctly formatting references. Instead he/she will just provide a [] outside link. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Scharnhorst class battleship Hey Toddy, I saw you corrected some information about the engagement with Renown - can you add the full references to the section at the bottom? We'll need those when the article eventually goes to FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] grammar I probably was also making a grammar edit, and since I don't like to type edit summaries I guess I typed only what I thought was important. I would assume looking at the sub-section edited and number of characters changed is a better indicator of how important a specific edit may be, generally. Fleetham (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled. On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way. For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note. Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] How annoying.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011 Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Re: Some advice I respect that you're trying to help out DailyEditor, but my whole argument revolves around the fact that he cannot add the data he wants because he will never have any legitimate references for it. Also, the fact that he's gathering the data through his own personal observations violates W:OR. This is something he's just not getting although he claims he's a competent editor. He wants to add the actual investigation dates for each of the episodes of Ghost Hunters (something the show itself doesn't reveal anywhere online and it's something he wouldn't know for sure unless he was part of the production crew or worked at SyFy). He claims he knows inside people at SyFy, but when he said they work for "SyFy: Imagine Greater" (adding the company's tag line to their name, which is just SyFy) sorry, it I got a bit skeptical. Anyway he told me he was getting this information by watching every episode on DVD and seeing what it says on the crew's computer screens and thermal camera footage. That is something that is completely unreliable to go by if you ask me. I know damn well that if someone submitted research using a method like that for something really important they'd be laughed out of the room. Besides there is no way to confirm these dates unless you spent time doing what he's doing. At least I get my dates the episodes aired from the official schedule on SyFy.com. As for me, I know I have a problem with being a little sarcastic with people and maybe calling his additions "trash info" that will just clutter the board wasn't the best approach I could have taken, but I only did that hoping he'd get a clue that it wasn't reliable information to begin with. He's adamant about putting the dates on there and at first it seemed like he was willing to come to a compromise, although there clearly isn't one in this case except to allow unverified information to be posted. The next day however he turns completely hostile and threatens to have me blocked for vandalism and says "you messed with the wrong guy." Sorry, at that point the gloves come off. I don't know about you, but that's how I roll. I'm sick of punks who clearly have no clue about what they're doing talking trash and according to proper etiquette, I'm just supposed to smile and take it was all in good faith. "Oh he didn't mean to call me an asshole. it just slipped out." In actuality, I clearly stumbled across (yet again) another eccentric and unstable individual with delusions of grandeur. Instead of working out the issue we have a guy ranting about the Queen of England and speaking Latin like it has anything to do with anything to solving this problem. He's clearly an egotistical weirdo with no place here on Wikipedia and keeping people like that isn't good for this website. This place apparently has gone soft, because back in the day - PSHHHHHT! they would be removed, no questions asked. Now it's like "Lets keep em around! See who else they drive to the edge!" I'm not saying lets test everyone here for mental competence and their grip on reality - I'm saying when you find one get rid of them. I'm just trying to clarify my side of the dispute here, showing where I believe he is wrong, but it seems I can't do that without being told that I'm just adding to the problem and digging a hole for myself. At least I'm not ranting in some obscure poetic vernacular about it. Give me a break. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Politeness. The issue was raised in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - at first it seemed that he was the one being uncivil. But then you started doing it too in the Wikiquette alerts discussion. That wasn't very smart. The paragraph you wrote above "In actuality, I clearly stumbled across..." is not helpful to your case. It makes you look uncivil. Please give yourself a break and stop making offensive comments about the kind of person you believe another editor to be.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] You all on the etiquette board appear to be ignoring the original problem that began this and focusing on the personal attacks part of it. And I know; "OMG! Etiquette Board - what else would we focus on? LOL!" I see now I should have probably have taken this to the content dispute board instead. But that aside, the original problem which started all this has not been addressed: his original research (which you are encouraging him to continue) and why I'm discussing all this with you in the first place. Are you familiar with Ghost Hunters? I'm not even sure if you've ever watch the show, or understand what I'm talking about, but the info he wants to add does not come from the DVDs, (as far as what is printed on the box, or booklets). Nor is any of it mentioned in dialog on the show, (or even behind the scenes stuff). Nor shown on screen with title cards. The only thing the show does to indicate when they investigate is put the day, (Wednesday, Friday, etc...) and a time stamp (2:30AM for example). No actual dates are given of when they are at a location. Why they do the whole date, I have no idea. If it were that simple then there wouldn't be a problem. DailyEditor thinks he can simply surmise the date they investigated a location, by reading them as they are displayed on the crew's video screens which they do a lot of close up shots when showing things. But to me that is an unreliable method, assuming that he is accurate, the only way to verify it is if we watch every episode and see it for ourselves. Is anyone that much of a diehard fan of the show to even care to do that? This is why I consider it an unnecessary addition to the article. Regardless, he's going to need to back up his information and I doubt he's going to find legitimate third party sources for anything he adds, (unless he finds someone out there who did the same thing and put it on a website, but how reliable were they? And would they be official? Probably not.) It's all going taken by his own word, and last I checked, that was against Wikipedia policy! I'm sure once the page block ends, he will go right ahead and slap it on up there again. he's already playing in his sandbox with it. And, we will be right back where we started! I know damn well, as soon as I call him out on it again, (however polite) he'll take it as a personal attack again. He won't listen to me at all, so someone else is going to have to confront him on it - if anyone cares. I know it's my fault getting him all riled up, and admit it was out of place to call him a lunatic - I based that on his obscure dialog and his spontaneous quoting of Latin. But anyway, based on his past edits he worked a lot on Indian/India subject articles so I assume he's from there. He made fun of the way I talk, regardless of his own misspellings and broken English, - he's obviously not used to how westerners generally speak. My guess is you yourself are not an American (based on your photographs on your personal page) but you seem to understand what I mean. Anyway, I'm just hoping you understand the real issue I have with this guy and what the original problem were conflicting over. How is that going to get resolved. this problem has already be taken farther than I wanted it to be. It should have been a simple, clear cut case but it's become so convoluted it's hard to see where it begins and ends. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] There are two separate issues. They need to be treated separately. 100% success with one, does nothing to address the other. Civility. Content. It should not be a surprise that Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts concentrates on civility. We have discussed civility. I realise that these situations generate stress, and that it is very easy to start saying uncivil things about the opposition. Indeed some people in edit wars deliberately provoke their opponents into uncivil behaviour. With respect of the article's content, I said on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts that you made appropriate edits. I have also given DailyEditor advice on how to proceed - which is to provide citations to reliable sources for all the information in the disputed sections, and to develop these citations on a sandbox page, then bring this to a talk page for discussion. From what you say about him playing in a sandbox with the article, he might well have made a start on this. That's good isn't it? The onus is on him to provide citations to reliable sources. I see that he has opened a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Clapperboards as a source of information; I suggest that you leave other users to comment on this, so that he does not get a feeling that you are persecuting him. He also mentions another programme's Facebook page as a possible source. My feeling is that he is going to learn a lot about the rules on reliable sources over the next few weeks. This is going to be very very frustrating for him. By the way, the reason I got an account on Wikipedia was because a friend asked me to write an article to advertise her new business. The article was speedy-deleted 18 hours after I finished it. This was frustrating, and embarrassing because I felt that I had let my friend down. But I learned from the experience. Neither of us know DailyEditor. He/she might be your next door neighbour, or he/she might be on the other side of the planet. For all we know, if you could meet DailyEditor in Starbucks, you would find her an enchanting teenage blonde, or he might be like Eric Cartman or Mr/Ms Garrison from South Park. Remember though, that Wikipedia has policies on outing.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've been here for a few years now, and yes, I know how frustrating things can be. Especially when dealing with people who come unhinged easily. My problem with civility here extends from the fact that I have a short fuse to begin with, and in my personal job I have to deal with idiots and jerks all day. I really don't want to have to deal with them when it comes to something like Wikipedia. At least at work, I get paid to put up with up with annoying people. Here I don't, it's a volunteer thing, so please forgive me if I feel less of an obligation to care if I hurt someone's feelings especially over something trivial like a television program. If this were a majorly important article, I'd probably show more compassion, but it's rare for me which why I steer far clear of all the hotly contested subject matters here on Wikipedia like politics and religion. It's also more tempting to snub your nose at people when they are just a anonymous name or number on a screen - like you said, we don't know these people personally. They may all be really nice people or, "worst-case scenario" be knife-wielding maniacs who collect severed doll heads and dead animals. Can't be too careful these days. I was in your boat though, when I first came here quite a few of my first articles (most of which dealt with Star Trek) were either deleted, or changed around so much none of my original wording is even there anymore. Looking back I know now that they were kind of trivial and I understand why they were changed. Lately though, I been working on the various TV shows I enjoy watching, and many shows had little to no information, so I expanded upon them mainly adding the episode listings. But I been trying to keep them minimal, just episode numbers/air dates/brief synopsis. Although, I've come across many fans who want to add a bunch of extra stuff I feel is unnecessary. Like blow-by-blow essays of everything that happened, and to me it's not the job of this website to give extraneous details like that (Wikipedia is not a fansite) - especially if there is no way to confirm such info without actually having to watch the show itself. They should perhaps visit a fan site for that info. That's just the angle I'm coming from and it was part of the reason a lot of my old stuff got deleted - people said it was too much, "niche information" or "fanfluff" and to get rid of it. I learned from that and agree with them now and there are policies concerning things like that. Anyway I don't want to keep taking up space on your talkpage. I think you know now where I stand on the issue. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thai article hoaxes Hi. I see you marked two recent articles, Thai invasion of northern Malaya and Northern Thais Campaign, for speedy deletion as blatant hoaxes. However, they're not sufficiently blatant to be clear vandalism, which is what speedy deletion requires, so I've removed the speedy tags and taken them both to AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai invasion of northern Malaya and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Thais Campaign. Please do add your comments there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] A reply Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Antarctic-adventurer's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I replied to your reply. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] +1 Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] File:Mirage 2000-5 Nancy - Ochey Air Base.jpg The French Ministry of Defense has already given explicit permission for educational and non-commercial use of its images with acknowledgement of the source. A larger image was uploaded but was automatically resized by a bot. ShipFan (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Where is the email from them giving permission?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] User:Kwamikagami Since he is an admin, and is using his admin tools to make these moves, is there a place to comment on his misbehavior/abuse as an admin? - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:ADMINABUSE, it looks like WP:ANI would be the place to go if he does not cease and desist. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] BilCat doesn't know what he's talking about. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Whether I do or not, the important thing is what the other admins at ANI would think. Keep this sort of baiting up,a nd we'll find out. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have reraised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Issues_with_User:Kwamikagami--Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Looks Like Kwami Will Slide AGAIN Hey Toddy: I've nearly gotten myself permanently blocked fighting with this Kwamikagami schmoe that messed up your ship articles/area so badly. I was glad to see you wading in with YOUR grievances, because I saw what he did to your area - same stuff he is doing to mine (cancer). I wish you would consider coming back over to ANI long enough to help me out some. This guy needs to be STOPPED, and why someone won't take action against him I have no idea. Dude is OBVIOUSLY way out of line REPEATEDLY. Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC) a/k/a Uploadvirus[reply] You are being overly combative. He is an admin. That means that many times a day he intervenes in disputes and solves people's problems. That wins him a large stock of goodwill. I suggest that you read the renaming dispute on Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War. You may want a few stiff drinks as you do so. You will see that there is a faction on Wikipedia who wish to impose their views on dashes and hyphens on the world. What they ought to be doing is to write a book similar to Eats shoots and leaves and try and get it published. This of course would entail a great risk - the risk that publisher's employee would take the trouble to explain the errors in their understanding.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] LOL! I did check that out, and I'm WAYYY past the point of a couple stiff drinks - hell, a 100 mg. bolus of pure heroin blasted straight into my carotid wouldn't even TOUCH the aggravation this has given me. Agree with you, though, but would just point out I TRIED being nice and non-combative, but it didn't work. So I blew. Which didn't work either. Old boy is gonna walk away, and it BURNS ME BAD! Thanks anyway, bro. See you around. Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] If he is stopped in your area, he will move on to another area. You can move back affected articles. I only did that for the ship articles on my watchlist - and then only for those where there had been no discussion of the move on the article talk page. I am nervous of a wholescale move - there is no consensus either way, and unlike K, I am not fireproof. Once he moves to another area, K will again annoy people by doing exactly the same things all over again. Since the current ANI will have been archive unresolved, you bring it back up, and bring the ship one back up. Eventually K will have annoyed so many people that something will be done. With these disputes, I tend to think ill of people who insist on rebutting every point that anyone else makes; it annoys me; it is as if they cannot tolerate people having any other point of view than their own. So I try to put my point of view forward, and not keep adding more in. I advise you to do the same when the next one comes up, which will probably be in 2-3 weeks time. --Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Will do, sounds good. I tried extending an olive branch to him AGAIN, but even though I wanted to bury the hatchet in some ways, I still felt like I had puke coming up in my throat. I'm not used to just surrendering when I know I'm right, and the other person is an a$$, and I can still stand and slug. LOL! OK, will talk to you later, and thanks. All the best:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] weird Just letting you know that DailyEditor messaged me saying their account was hacked by a "teen Roman whack-job" who did all the personal attacks against me and apologized for any trouble it might have caused. I'm not really buying this, but whatever. DE seems have gotten into a tussle with another user, Xeworlebi over edits made to White Collar and claimed there as well that their account was hacked. I'm not sure what is going on but it may bear investigating. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it could be true - especially if the Romanian girl was staying with him.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] He says he accesses the internet from a college cybercafe and he accidentally left his account open while on vacation, during which someone gained unauthorized access. It's possible, I know, but seems suspicious. It just seems like the oldest excuse in the book if you ask me. Jasper Deng has been talking with him about it. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Zaporizhzhya Are you following that other user? What are your thoughts? --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] This person is potentially a useful Wikipedia editor. Already he/she is providing useful information, and is learning how to provide citations for it. He/she appears reasonable - so when shown the article on Kodak and asked to provide sources for the claim he/she made about Kodak, he/she admitted that he/she was mistaken. You are being too hard on him - please try to soften up. I know from experience that it can be very frustrating.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] It took me 70 minutes to draw up something to try to resolve your edit war. Please read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your efforts. While he/she is potentially a good editor, his/her English is going to be a serious problem. --Taivo (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] You appear to have had difficulty understanding Zas2000's comment of 04:01, 1 April 2011. Is this correct? I found it easy to understand. You asked the question Did the later siches follow the pattern of the earlier one or not? He replied by asking what kind of pattern did you mean? How the Cossacks earned money? The location of the siches? He then asked what could later siches have had in common with Vishnevetskii's sich and suggested that how the Cossacks earned money was about the only thing. He said that whilst the historian Grushevitsky said that that Vishnevetskii's sich was a prototype sich, another historian called IP Saveliev said in his book "Ancient History of the Cossacks," that the founder of the Zaporozhye Sich was Hetman Lanskoronsky. Lanskoronsky was active in 1512, long before Vishnevetskii; In Lanskoronsky time the Cossacks built small forts upstream of the rapids. I think that if appropriate citations were made to books or articles by Grushevitsky and Saveliev this would answer your objection to "Some historians..."--Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] He is male :-) Unfortunally, we had many editwars with ZAS2000 in ru-wiki. --Movses (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] to Toddy - read this about "Zaporozhie in occupation" (In Russian): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%8C%D1%8F#.D0.93.D0.BE.D0.B4.D1.8B_.D0.BE.D0.BA.D0.BA.D1.83.D0.BF.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8. I think, it is very interesting information. This information was published in a local newspaper Zaporozhye. Unfortunately, the reference was gone. Some time ago it was available online. --zas2000 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Award Ukraine Barnstar I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for helping Zas2000 in improving Zaporizhia articles the past weeks! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) [reply] PS Too bad that your city lost to Lviv in "Майданс". Better luck next time! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Trafalagar class Hi Toddy, in case you don't see, I have added a note over at Talk:Trafalgar-class submarine regarding the propeller discussion. Cheers, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] A reply Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Antarctic-adventurer's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. List of Jewish American mobsters Thanks for the link. "List of convicted Jewish criminals" should be even less controversial as many of those under mobsters were just suspects. Bob19842 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] The List of Jewish American mobsters is defensible as a page in Wikipedia because there is a well-referenced article talking about Jewish-American organized crime as a topic.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] As noted by that one editor on the undelete request page, there's a fundamental distinction between "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" and "List of convicted Jewish criminals". Namely, that the first list is a verifiable and fixed number, whereas there are no verifiable standards for the second list, which could expand into the thousands upon thousands if you listed every Jew that's ever been convicted of anything, clear down to jaywalking. As you note, prominent Jewish members of the Mafia are a much smaller number and are verifiable, as with the top Irish and Italian mobsters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please discuss that here or elsewhere but not at WP:REFUND. Thanks, --Tikiwont (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Too late. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] He reverted my contribution before sending his message.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] No offense or personal censure intended but after the third reply we somehow need to close that thread.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Putting up a tough defense. Like that old American flag, "Don't thread on me!" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Revert Why did you revert my edit? Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry. I did not even know that I had done this. I have no explanation. The list of my contributions shows an edit at 07:45 GMT, which was 2 hours after my last edit. Please accept my apologies - it was not intentional.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] No problem, I figured it was probably a mistake - I've done the same myself now and again :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Alexandrovsks I just wanted to point out that this is not an ideal solution. We should have a straight link to the existing article whenever possible, and while a redirect approach will certainly work on some occasions, it will fail on many others. Alexandrovsk in Murmansk Governorate, for example, was over time a part of Kolsky and Alexandrovsky Uyezds (which themselves were parts of different governorates over the course of history), then a part of Murmansk Governorate, and then a part of Murmansk Okrug, which is when it was renamed Polyarny. Your method only picks one subordination unit out of the whole chain, which is quite arbitrary. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2011; 17:37 (UTC) There is no ideal solution. Surely the purpose of disambiguation pages is to help people disambiguate? If someone is looking up Alexandrovsk, we can assume that want to find Alexandrovsk; so giving them relevant disambiguators is appropriate. References like this [10] can be used even by people who do not speak Russian, if they can disambiguate different towns of the same name. It is of no use knowing that the one you want was renamed XXXXX 20 years after the book was written. But it is useful knowing the Governate of the time, because that was a common disambiguator. I know the Governates changed over time - redirects provide a potential solution in some cases. It is not perfect, but it helps.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well, it doesn't really help those people who happened to stumble upon the city reference in the context of another governorate. When you flat out tell that such and such town was a part of Governorate X, you pretty much divert the folks who were looking for that same town when it was a part of SomeOtherDivision Y (which, in case with Alexandrovsk in Murmansk Governorate is most of its history). With the straight out "used to be called" approach there is at least an incentive to check the entries individually. Anyway, since we are obviously not going anywhere with this, I am going to mark the dab in question as needing cleanup—I'm sure there are also some WP:MOSDAB issues with the current approach I can't quite put my finger on, so I'll leave it to the friendly MOSDAB folks to address. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2011; 13:45 (UTC) Caitlin Crosby I've gone ahead and reverted the addition of the subject's dating history. While the content is sourced, it is not encyclopedic. It is not appropriate to include any content available, by rationalizing that it is sourced. Wikipedia is not a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of gossip or fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish. A subject's dating history and http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/ would fall within these parameters. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is what she is most notable for--Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is not a notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is not a forum for reporting fan-based gossip. Cind.amuse 07:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please do not ever write on my talk page again under any circumstances, even if doing so will save your life.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] I certainly do not wish to offend you, but rather provide assistance on editing policies and guidelines, where editors may lack understanding. To that end, you may want to review our policy on ownership and editing of user pages and assuming good faith. Wikipedia is a community, where policy on behavior has been defined for use of talk pages. Talk pages are provided to aid in the collaborative process among editors easier. It is according to this understanding that I have communicated, with the goal to continue improving the encyclopedia. If you ever have questions as you navigate through Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Stop Russifiying Ukrainian cities on English Wikipedia. --68.36.49.223 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 806: / Line 806: @@
 == Lvov ==
+LVIV LVIV LVIV AND LVIV AGAIN!  UNDERSTOOD?  Hope you did.  --[[Special:Contributions/68.36.49.223|68.36.49.223]] ([[User talk:68.36.49.223|talk]]) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 Fair enough. From a quick glance there appeared to be a reasonable number of in-line citations; hence, in the interests of not swamping articles to the point that everyone ignores these templates where they are most needed to have an impact, I thought it best to remove. Needless to say, if you have specific concerns, I am happy that you reinstate, or to avoid this happening in future, you could consider tagging individual passages with "citation required" tags at the appropriate points. This may be the best approach if there are particular statements or facts that you would like to see verified, as the blanket approach is less likely to focus improvements in the desired areas. [[User:Brittle heaven|Brittle heaven]] ([[User talk:Brittle heaven|talk]]) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 826: / Line 828: @@
 P 33: Ze słów Nestora sądzić trzeba, że kraina grodów czerwieńskich po roku 981 należała do Lachów, czyli do Polski. [...] Ziemia zaś, zdobyta w roku powyższym przez Włodzimierza na Lachach, była to późniejsza Ruś Czerwona. Mówili zatem prawdę Ibrahim i Al-Bekri o państwie Mieszka (sięgającem od Baltyku i Odry po grody czerwieńskie), że był to „kraj wielki między słowiańskimi”.
 ------[[User:Paweł5586|Paweł5586]] ([[User talk:Paweł5586|talk]]) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 == Stock Exchange Scandal ==

Revision as of 19:53, 22 September 2011

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Maritime History Task Force

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

Welcome

User page redirect

Dnipropetrovsk

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

HMS Inflexible's armament

Wooden steam warships

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

Dates

Those Canadian escorts

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

re:References

Sandboxes

Anglo-Egyptian War

HMS Inconstant (1868)

First Sea Lords

Categories

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

My Apologies for Dnepropetrovsk Discussion edit

Renames

Missing ships

Graph

Ships-of-the-line

Trophy Cabinet

Warship template

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

Jonathan Sayeed

Chris Pond

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Flag icons in infoboxes

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

note

blind revert

Dreadnought again

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

AfD nomination of Brownfield architecture

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

Military history coordinator selection

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

Date format

Dnipropetrovsk

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

Battleship citations

RE:Image Deletion

List of Battleships of France

Replied...

WP:MOSDAB

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

Milliknots

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

Early Armoured Battleships

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

Re:Battle of Legnica

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

jackie fisher

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

Proposal 3

Light tanks

Hms Hood

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

Talkback

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

HMS Britannia (1860)

Military history wikiproject

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

ARA Santísima Trinidad

Military history WikiProject coordinator election