User talk:Manxruler

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Falphin 15:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Skancke-skjold.JPG, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

?

Out of curiosity, could you please tell me what contained within "Thanks for your help in editing this article. Can you please provide citations for the information you added, including where you removed the 'citation needed' tag but did not provide a citation. Thanks." can be possibly construed as an 'attack'? Jeez, can a guy not make an honest mistake around here? And I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped writing on my userpage; that's what User talk:Cripipper is for. Thanks! :) Cripipper 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction with regards to proper procedure, it is appreciated. It was more your insistence in persisting in your claims that I found somewhat provocing. I would have had a closer look at things after the person I was requesting sources from stated that he had made no such changes, not just charged along.Manxruler 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I did say it was off the top of my head. I was in a rush out. But hey - it can't have taken up more than two minutes of your time. No need to get ratty. :) Cripipper 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Its cool, just be a little bit less hasty, is all. Manxruler 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mowe class destroyer?

Hi! Nice to meet you. We've sort of brushed shoulders recently. While tidying the WWII ship list, I came across the article on the Mowe class. It bothered me and I left a comment on its talk page. I'd appreciate your comment - and anyone else!! Torpedo boat type 35 may also need attention. Folks at 137 09:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'll wait briefly to see if there's some good counter-argument, then I'll arrange the name changes. Folks at 137 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Day

Get an email adress Potaaatos 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So that you can recive emails from people on wikipedia Potaaatos 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Day of shame

OK, I erred with Togo and Kamerun. My source was [[1]] and I must have got into "auto" mode while going through that list. Thanks for picking up on it. I'm also using uboat.com as a source for Allied vessels and slowly working through them. Folks at 137 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually try to acquire 2 sources, but with some detail, I do take a chance. I would like the lists to use "standard displacement", as it had relevance under various treaties and it would limit the number of ships on the WWII list. It's become very large, but I'm uncertain of where and how to sub-divide it - probably alphabetically, but... I have a similar issue with the <1000 ton list. It could be huge. I think we need to sub-divide it soon, before every minesweeper and patrol craft appears. Also do we limit to "real" belligerents? There's been a discussion on who to include on Template:World War II, maybe that's a suitable guide. As for mucking in, maybe. My attention continues with the WWII list and the Eastern Fleet list and a list of WWII military operations. There's also a list of ship classes that might be useful. I find lists interesting as they give an entry into subjects, but is there any way of consolidating the warship lists? I'm thinking of a sortable list with attributes. Sorry for long waffle, didn't have time to do a short one, off to church. Folks at 137 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

German World War II destroyers - revert

I reverted the change that you made to this article and added a supporting reference. No offence intended. The referenced article seems relatively convincing, with plenty of detail, although I have read sources that only mention the mines. Let me know what you think as there are other articles that are affected. Folks at 137 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Hey, Folks. No, I'm not offended by your revert, not at all, in fact, I'm sorry for not replying any sooner, it's slipped my mind I guess.

According to German wikipedia [2] Leberecht Maas was either bombed or mined, while Max Schultz was mined.

However, according to this German encyclopedia [3] Leberecht Maas was bombed and Max Schultz definitively mined and this German encyclopedia [4] both were bombed. All in all I'm left quite unsure of what the official opinion really is. Manxruler 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WWII Ships

The list is v big. I've put up some suggestions on the talk page. Your comments are sought. Folks at 137 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: HNoMS Olav Tryggvason

Thanks for pointing out my incorrect 'fix'. The reason the text was corrected was that the Norwegian text was not tagged as Norwegian, so I've added the correct tags. The text will now be ignored by my English-language spelling corrections. I'll try to do a search for any similar text that needs tagging too. Thanks Rjwilmsi 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied - I appreciate learning about language tagging. Manxruler 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

HNoMS Olav Tryggvason

Dear commander, this source: * Berg, Ole F.: [I skjærgården og på havet - Marinens krig 8. april 1940 - 8. mai 1945, Marinens Krigsveteranforening] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Oslo 1997 ISBN 82-993545-2-8 is a Norwegian source, as signified by the lang|no tag, hence the first letters of months is not supposed to be capital. I thought that tagging sources with lang|no would prevent this problem, isn't that correct? Manxruler 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Manxruler. Thanks for pointing out the bug in my bot. I've made it ignore any text inside a lang template. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied - Glad to be of assistance. Its a fine bot you have made, good to hear its getting even better. Manxruler 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Swedish language tag

Looking at the ISO 639 code list it's {{lang|sv|some text}} for Swedish. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied - Thanks for the info. Appreciate it. Manxruler 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Submarine Pennants

Hi, thanks for the kind words. As to the different numbers, not my doing unfortunately. I've been editing, creating new articles, etc for a large number of already listed submarines (mostly S class). They were basically red links, so the pennant number was already there and I saw no reason to change it. When cleaning up the links I came across the shipwrecks page and corrected the links to point to the new articles, and some that already existed. As to who first created the links, I'm not sure, but a lot of related articles used the pennants shown to link to that particular ship, so I'm guessing there is at least one source that lists those pennant numbers. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what it is. Colledge doesn't list their pennants, and the only place on the web I can find is Uboot.net. The problem is probably where the submarines used more than one pennant number in their career, and Uboot uses one and the original editor has used the other. Otherwise I'm not sure what to suggest. bye f'r now. Benea 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied - Hello again. That makes sense, sometimes the pennant numbers are those first used, sometimes the ones used later. Personal preference of the Wikipedians that created the red links, I guess. Here's a great website for British subs of WWII:
British Submarines of World War Two. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892)

Hi Manxruler. You are off to such a great start on the article HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied Thanks for that one too. Appreciate it. Manxruler 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Trygg class torpedo boat

Hi Manxruler. You are off to such a great start on the article Trygg class torpedo boat that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied Hi Jreferee. Thank you for reading the article, and for your commendation. As you suggested, I posted the article on the Did you know? suggestions. I'm honored that you liked my article. Manxruler 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

July 4th, 2007 DYK

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trygg class torpedo boat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Infobox feet-meter converter

Glad you like the infobox. The template Convert supports any combination of units (within reason of course, you can't convert feet to degrees Fahrenheit, though). To convert feet to metres just reverse the units. Instead of {{convert|55|m|ft|2|lk=on}} , put {{convert|55|ft|m|2|lk=on}} to get 55 feet (16.76 m). The basic setup of the template is {{convert|original_value|original_unit|conversion_unit|round_to}} . The "lk=on" I tacked on to the end of the template was to automatically put links on the measurement units when they are used for the first time in an article (which should be done per WP:MOS).

If you have any questions about anything (related or non-related), let me know. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied Thanks. That's good info to have. A really useful template. Will get back to you if I have anything else at a later time. Be well. Manxruler 05:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavia WWII template

No problems with change - I can see the logic, although to some Brit readers, Narvik was the Norwegian campaign and has a high profile. (BTW, is there a mention anywhere of the annual gift to Britain of a tree at Christmas as a commemoration?) Anyway, I'm out of my depth. As I said if it's useful, develop it. It was intended only as a prompt anyway. Folks at 137 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied Hi again Folks. Glad you don't mind. Yeah, I can see how that would be true, the Brits are really Narvik-focused, although the fighting took place all over the country and British LAND forces fought mostly in the southern and mid portions of Norway (f.ex.: Namsos campaign). In fact, the Brits did virtually no land fighting on the Narvik front, they contributed with the RN and RAF while the Norwegians, French and the Poles fought Dietl's men on land. For the annual Christmas tree gift to London see either Norway (best) or Oslo. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Nordic-task-force includes Iceland, should Icelandic articles be included in the template? Folks at 137 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:Although Iceland is considered a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian country as such, I feel Invasion of Iceland could fit in quite well in the template. Besides, the whole definition of "Scandinavia" is quite open to interpretation and often includes the Nordic countries. Plus, Iceland was part of Denmark when the Brits invaded in 1940. Lets include the Invasion of Iceland, that makes sense. If there are other major Icelandic WWII articles they could probably work in the template too. Good idea. Manxruler 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::I think that since the Scandinavia article states (with ref.) that "As a linguistic and cultural concept, Scandinavia thus also includes Iceland and the Faroe Islands." it would be totally ok to add Icelandic articles (of importance comparable with the articles already in the template, of course) to the template. Manxruler 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comments here. Valentinian is arguing that there are no real links between the wartime experiences of Denmark and othe Nordic countries and objects to the use of this template. Folks at 137 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Capital letters

Sure, looks like it got moved to here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms. Oberiko 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.310

Rocca, Gianni I disperati pag. 120-121 8804338261, Pedriali Ferdinando Biplani d'assalto in Africa Settentrionale Rivista Storica n.10, Coop. Giornalisti Storici, Rome.

There are more, just Gustin Aviation Encyclopedia on Internet says:

'More powerful development of the Ca.309, with retractable landing gear. The Ca.310 was not considered an effective combat aircraft, and most had second-line tasks. A number were exported.'

In Italy, sorry we have italian language, even if mr. Bzuk, my actual persecutor not accept it, but in Italy i say, it's plenty of complaints about Ca.310. In fact, they were refused by Hungary that buyed 30+ and lost for accidents 3 in few time, and in Africa the CA.310 was swiftly sobstitued as attack aircaft by CR.32 and Ba.65, two aircraft that should had been phased out, instead sobsitued their successor as attack aircraft(!!!!). Norway AFAIK accepted Ca.312 that was an improved Ca.310, UK would buy some but after requested CA.313, a bit better.

The Regia Aereonautica commander, at one time, accused Caproni industries to not have gave a single valid machine for the whole war. Not even Ca.314, a non-role aircraft.

I don't hope to 'show' something that perhaps is not liked and so not believed. I have already well understood what's the manners in wikipedia, and overall wiki.en. Whetever i say it's the same music: give me proof, even with the most trivial affermations, and italian aeronautics is my specialization.

The principle of 'presume good faith' is definitively reversed presume the guy is a SOB. Amusing, and i am actually amused. S. M. (buttons on virtual screen not funcitions, sorry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::Thank you for the references. Could you add them to the text that you added to the Caproni Ca.310 article? That was pretty much all that was needed, citations are always very nice to have. Thanks again. Manxruler 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::If I in any way offended you by asking for citations, then I'm sorry. It was not my intention to do any such thing. I just strongly feel that citations are a vital part of making Wikipedia a better place and that any contribution should be escorted by proper citations. Manxruler 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::Hi again. I can't find the Gustin Aviation Encyclopedia online. Please help me out with a link. Manxruler 07:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

No not you are irritating. It's an old history with Mr Bzuk, BillBC and some others that make my life here almost as impissible.

The problem about citation is that i could simply give and even translate the stuff i have, but even this could be disputed by someone. Even Joe Baugher site and Tom Cooper are 'not enough' and this really speaks a volume about.

Gustin aviation encyclopedia is not currently available, indeed. I have downloaded this stuff in my PC being a prevident one. I wish it will be soon available.

Pedriali about Ca.310: This was a modest light transport aircraft, ordered without a precise role. In Rome they thinks to made it in an attack aircraft, sobstiuting the more powerful Ba.65 Gen Porro, after seeing the inefficency that Ca.310 , -an gracius but delicate aircraft not suited for the task of assault machine-, gave to the 50 Stormo, ordered to replace them immmediatly with the Ba.65 still nor demolished and CR.32 with bombs. Just some examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::Good you're not harboring any ill feelings towards me. I have nothing to do with whatever it is you and the wikipedians you mentioned got going. I just like citations, is all. Be well. Manxruler 10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, perhaps i was not clear? I stated that you are not the problem, the problems are with other guys so i have started to began sensible to continous cit. needed and deletions. Not to sayng that you are the cause, just that this time is not too good for someone that call me about this or that. Sorry, it's the overall climate 'unfriendly' that often i feel inside wiki that make me a bit worry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::Hey, relax. I'm just saying that I didn't want to misunderstand or stress you out or anything like that. Its cool. I wasn't being critical, just asked a question earlier which you answered satisfactory. No problems, we're good. Manxruler 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Caproni Ca.310 again

Copyedit from my page: "Hi Bill. I've worked on the Caproni Ca.310 article recently. Could you drop by it and see if further wikifying is needed? I've rewritten most of it and provided citations the language and reference parts are good. Thanks in advance. Manxruler 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the help on this article, but I have some concerns with regards to the picture of a Ca.310 you uploaded. That's a Norwegian Ca.310. I think the picture is very likely to be Norwegian and hence does not fall under Italian copyright legislation... Manxruler 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"

I didn't notice that originally. I wonder if it could still have been a factory photo? Often aircraft under construction were painted to the owner's specifications before they left the factory. Regardless, I have substituted a new photograph in anticipation of someone challenging the photo. You did one super job on the article, you set up the sections nicely (it still needs some Imperial measures for the specifications template to work properly) but the big construction job is done; I merely came in to "sweep up." FWIW, send me an email, I would like to collaborate with you again. Bzuk 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jageren Æger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jageren Æger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.Manxruler 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your fine contributions to Norwegian articles and Norwegian military history in particular. Inge 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent Barnstar, Inge. I'm honored. Manxruler 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

{{helpme}}

I tried to make the citations on the article Hans Reidar Holtermann more effective by using the <ref name= tool and most of the text of the article became invisible. Why did that happen? See this to see what I'm talking about. Manxruler 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly because you have an unclosed <ref> tag; I'll have a look at the article now. --ais523 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that you wrote <ref name= "Mil.no">; you should have written <ref name="Mil.no"/> (notice the extra slash at the end of the ref tag). This catches quite a few users out; hope that helps! --ais523 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Operation Weserübung

A question - why did you chose to delete the address by Joachim von Ribbentrop to diplomatic and press representatives in Berlin on April 10, 1940, explaining the German invasion of Norway? I reverted your edit as it was without reason and detrimental to the article. Manxruler 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it has been deleted from Wikisource due to missing translator information. Dead links are less than informative. Should have said that in the edit, I suppose. 85.112.147.118 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, of course. Thank you for the clarification. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ISBN typos

No problem. I am guessing that i lit up your watchlist? LA2 highlighted the problem at the WP:MILHIST talkpage, through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. I was happy to oblige!!! Woodym555 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Ships

WikiProject Ships Hello Manxruler! I noticed your contributions to a ship article, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Ships, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of ships of all kinds. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Maralia 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I hope you are feeling much better very soon. Maralia 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check

Hi, I just overwrote and redid some of your edits to Battle of Drøbak sound - I'd made but not saved a lot of small changes of my own and it was easier to merge your changes into mine than vice-versa. I think I've merged everything you did, but you might like to check it. Thanks, Ben Aveling 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know when you're done and I can check it again. Cheers, Ben Aveling 08:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good on you

your intervention in the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 article through your gentle prodding and pointed questions has resolved a long-standing issue that has plagued many of the submissions provided with inadequate or incomplete reference citations. I have a comparable, albeit lengthy list of other concerns (just kidding, but drop me an email, see Bzuk, we were meaning to talk, if you recall). FWIW Bzuk 14:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Copyedit from my page: "Hi again, Bill. Yup, we were going to talk. I would have gotten an email here and everything a long time ago too, but you see I have some health issues these days, of unknown seriousness, so I kinda don't make any promises about anything right now. When I get better we'll definitely talk. Manxruler 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)"

Manx, no problem, first things first and your health is more important than anything else. Take care of yourself. FWIW, my best wishes go with you. Bzuk 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

WWII Resistance

You may like to view this contribution list. The editor appears to regard WWII resistance organisations (including Scandinavian) as "terrorists" and has added categories to reflect this. Your opinion? Folks at 137 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"HNoMS Nordkapp OPV" change - southwestern

Hi,

Thanks for the info about southwestern spelling. I normally don't change the spelling if the alternative is correct. Actually both are correct! See: south-western. MS Word spellchecker marked it as incorrect for British English, but I see now it's acceptable for U.S. English. I'll leave them as is from now on. Regards, JohnI (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied:::

Hi John,

No problem, if the British English version is south-western, then south-western it is. I've been subjected to too many variants of the English language to edit only in British English or only in American English. Its all a mix. Thanks for spell checking my work. Manxruler (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Being a speaker of Australian English, (a British variant), I've become resolved to the idea that we'll all be using American English in the future. They have the weight of numbers compared to British speakers. So I accept either for the time being... Re: the spellchecks, no worries mate! <-- Australian colloquialism :-) Regards, JohnI (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied::::I guess you have a good point there; with the worldwide cultural influence and number of people in the US American English certainly has an advantage. However, I have now acquired the "English (Britain)"-version of the firefox spell checker so I hope that will help me in writing less American and more British, after all the English I was taught in school was British English. I'd like to keep my English fairly British and I think this new spell checker will help. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Outer Hebrides

I do apologise. Please feel free to put everything back where it was originally on the 'Outer Hebrides' page. It will not be changed again TonyDodson (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied::::Thanks for being so understanding. Your wildlife book might very well be a very good addition to the article, it merely needsto be added with sufficient detail and in the proper way. The conventional way to add a book is: Author. "Title". Place of publication. Publisher, year. ISBN. (if avaiable) Just use that recipe and everyone is happy. Manxruler (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

Copyedit: "Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Manx (sorry don't know your real name just your "nom de plume"), thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "Reggiane Re.2000" citation/reference note. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. The entry should have appeared as (Henriksson, Lars. Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945). Ljungskile, Sweden: Avrosys.nu,29 June 2005 J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945))If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet. His guideline would look like this example: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) which is what I used. I know it is not technically correct but it is one of the "jury-rigged" adaptations that works out well. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to the verbiage above and your note on my talk page: "Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.

As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)",

Yes, Manx, I agree that the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Replied::::Good, agreed. But why is "" better than ""? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the simpler form should predominate. Not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. If it hasn't already been changed, please feel free to revise the notation in the Re 200 article. BTW, thanks for the reminder, I sometimes don't notice the request for information if it is attached to an earlier "string" on my talk page. Bzuk 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

History of the Jews in Norway and its new category

Hi Manxruler: I see that you reverted me [5] at History of the Jews in Norway, but you have not understood that a new category has been created that has changed things. Please see Talk:History of the Jews in Norway#This article and its own category. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied::::Hi IZAK. Thanks for explaining the category edit to me. I now understand the intention and apologize for the revert. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Høver M.F. 11

Sorry for the slow reply, I only rarely lurk these days. I probably found the image through Google image search. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied::::I'll see if I can track the source down. Norwegian copyright laws are quite liberal, but I need to know the source. Thanks for the information.

Help needed on transfer of images

{{helpme}} I have over some time uploaded a number of images to English Wikipedia, but since recently I have begun to make use of Wikimedia. How can I move the images I have uploaded here over to Wikimedia?

Also, most of the images I have uploaded here have been tagged with the wrong Copyright tags, as I initially believed that many were copyrighted when they were actually PD. Manxruler (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no "move" function per se. What you'll have to do is download the images locally, and reupload them to the Commons. While you're doing that you can update the template to reflect the correct status. Once that's done, you can use {{ncd}} to have the original WP image deleted (see instructions here, section III), or wait for a bot to clean up after you; I think such a bot exists. --DeLarge (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Dombås, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment at DYK

You commented at DYK that my nom of Capitol Offense (band)did not have any "in-text citations." It has several, including one directly for the hook I proposed. Could you explain what you were referring to, since my nom is set to expire soon, and having that comment floating out there can't help what might otherwise be an attractive hook. Bellwether ^B_C 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied

Hi Bellwether. I can understand your frustration when you saw what appeared to be a comment by me with regards to your nominated article supposedly lacking in in-text citations.

However, I have never made any such statement with regards to your article. None at all. The comment you reacted to was directed at this nomination: "...that William Melmoth's 1711 work The Great Importance of a Religious Life Consider'd went through thirty editions and sold over 420,000 copies by the end of the century? (self-made) Geogre (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" that was located right below you.

After that nomination led to a DYK it disappeared from the "Template talk:Did you know", but for some reason my comment did not. Due to what was probably a malfunction in the system the comment remained and seemed aimed at your nomination, which it never was. I see that your nomination still went through fine and hope you did not have much trouble due to this event, even though it never, at any point, was due to any mistake of mine. The article I left the comment about was not yours and did not include in-text citations. System failure was behind this one. Have a good day and keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all

I haven't been through a DYK nomination before (the other article I wrote that made it was nommed by someone else), so I was just kind of confused. Now worries! -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Ronaldsway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Interesting fact about finding the mass grave! --Royalbroil 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem has been sorted out. Manxruler (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I need help with a "Blacklisted Hyperlink"

{{helpme}} When I try to edit the article Hammerfest I'm refused to save my edit due to a "Blacklisted Hyperlink". What's wrong? Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you tying to add a link? It might be blacklisted. Soxred93 | talk bot 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to add a link. Just trying to do a normal edit, in this case alphabetizing the list of notable people from Hammerfest. Yesterday I tried to move an image slightly, and got the same message. Manxruler (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This only happens when I attempt to edit Hammerfest. Manxruler (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The message says the link "birdwatch.brinkster.net" is what triggered it. I've never heard about it before. Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That link has been there for years, it turns out. I don't know who added it. Should I remove it? I doesn't seem like spam to me. Manxruler (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an the Blacklist, as far as I can see. Manxruler (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist - It's there : \bbirdwatch\.brinkster\.net\b You could remove the link, which will allow you to save the page. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Drøbak Sound

1) Well, you probably know better, being a Norwegian and all, but cannon caliber is measured in millimeters (and inches). Can you specify how this particular cannons are special? 2) While the designated names of military formations are usually capped, I didn't see this used for individual weapons systems. Besides, the guns' names are also mentioned... --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied -Just as an example; Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Kystartilleriet 100 år" - THE book on Norwegian coastal artillery - constantly refers to the Kopås guns as 15 cm guns and the Main Battery guns as 28 cm guns, while the Husvik battery pieces are referred to as 57 mm guns. This is how Norwegian coastal artillery calibres are designated in all Norwegian texts, several of which are written by military officers. The line seems to go somewhere around 7 cm/70 mm, seeing as Norwegian 65 mm guns are labelled with millimetres, while 7,5 cm guns are labelled with centimetres. What does the gun names have to do with anything? Manxruler (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied -:Example from the text of Fjeld's book: "-Königsberg (light cruiser) suffered three hits from 21 cm shells, the most serious penetrating the engine room without exploding. The two other hits rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The number of dead and wounded is not known. All the hits came from the 21 cm battery at Kvarven." (from the German attack on Bergen 9 April, 1940.) 21 cm rounds from the 21 cm battery. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose Norwegian military has its own point of view on standard caliber units. I just never heard of cannon calibers being measured in cm, hence my "standardizing" edit.

The names part address the way "Main Battery" should be written - with capital letters, as a name, or small letters, as a weapons system. --Illythr (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied -:Yes, Norway is different in many ways. Still, the Brits seem to accept our standards. Dildy, Douglas C. Denmark and Norway, 1940: Hitler's Boldest Operation; Osprey Campaign Series #183; ISBN 9781846031175. Osprey Publishing, 2007 uses the same exact system. Manxruler (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to see. Thanks, no more questions. --Illythr (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagicons

I'd like to direct your attention to WP:FLAG, specifically flagicons should not be used in connection with place of birth and death. In conjunction with awards and honours it should be fine, though. __meco (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it. I will modify my edits accordingly, I only used the flag icons for birth/death locations after seeing it used that way somewhere on Wikipedia. Now that I know what's proper procedure I I will of course follow it. Manxruler (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Czortkow Uprising

Thanks for helping out with this article, I do appreciate it. I am not a native speaker of English, and your input is much appreciated by me. Tymek (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied Glad to help out. I'm not a native English speaker either, and I'm fully aware of the grammatical differences between for example Polish and English. Czortkow Uprising is an interesting article on a subject I haven't heard of before. Manxruler (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I thought you were a native, but it does not matter. Are you interested in Polish history or was this edit random? Tymek (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedMy edits weren't completely random, no. I'm a World War II historian, and I've had a certain interest for Polish 20th century history ever since reading a work on WWII by a Polish author like 15 years ago. Also, I've read quite a bit on the Polish Independent Highland Brigade which fought at the Battles of Narvik together with Polish naval ships such as ORP Grom. Manxruler (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Oh, I see -- "a Tromsø, Norway gun shop." LOL! I thought it meant this was the name for a Norwegian gun shop. ;-D Very sorry. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedThat's perfectly ok. I got a bit confused when I saw the new caption, but I realised that it had to be a mix-up when I saw the edit was by an established user as yourself. If you click the Tromsø wikilink you'll see that its the capital of Troms county in North Norway. I don't think we have any articles on Norwegian gun shops, perhaps since they are not organized in chains or anything like that. The Hakapiks are displayed on the wall of that gun shop due to Tromsø being the main centre of the seal processsing industry in Norway, its were all the sealing boat come in to sell their catch. Keep up the good work and have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Harriman piece

Thanks for your constructive criticism of the references in the Daisy Harriman page. I think I've succeeded in making the two types of improvements you've suggested. I'll keep watching in case I haven't. Wikijsmak (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedHi Jsmak. Yep, you've made the improvements I suggested. The only further thing I'd recommend is to add an Infobox Person to the article. Great article, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedHi again. I'd just like to congratulate you on the DYK and tell you that I think the article look really great. Keep up the good work! Manxruler (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willis Lent, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You did significant help improving this article. Without you it wouldn't have been featured, so I felt it was appropriate to give you DYK credit for your help expanding the article. --Royalbroil 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedThank you very much, Royal. I do appreciate it. Manxruler (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations

Manxruler, ship articles created from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships do not need inline citations, because they are virtually word-for-word cut-and-pastes from the original source. There are literally thousands of such articles on Wikipedia, and none of them have citation tags for that very reason. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedThank you for informing me of this particular system. How is one to know what parts of the article is from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships? Although an article is based on this dictionary I assume it is still fully possible to edit the article and thus making it less a word-for-word cut-and-paste from the original source? Manxruler (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure you can edit the article, and a little bit of sprucing up usually needs to be performed. But virtually all the information for these US Navy ship articles comes from DANFS, so citations as a general rule are regarded as redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

updating the references

Appreciate your dedication in updating references in general and in the Vardøhus Fortress article in particular. I can't locate my copy of Christian 4.s Finnmarkreise in 1599 so am unable to give you a page citation; however this text can be confirmed from other sources, if you judge it is urgent. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedThanks for the appreciation. No, its no hurry at all. I'll find a source in a week's time. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). Numbers are also expressed as words if they are the beginning of a sentence such as: "Ten ducks crossed the street." That's from the style manual, still hasn't changed as far as I know. Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

RepliedThanks for the info, Bill. Manxruler (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Empire Galahad

Sorry, didn't realise. Have added her to the list of ship launches in 1942 as well. Hopefully she will stay there! Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedYep, that list seems to include ALL ships launched that year, so that work out just fine. By the way, what exactly is the notability of this ship? Manxruler (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Errrm, aren't all ships notable? There nothing in the notability guidelines on Transportation about ships. Anyway, Empire Galahad was a war veteran, surviving at least four convoys (I can add brief details to the article if desired). All Navy ships qualify on notability grounds, so the same should apply for the Merchant Navy. If the MS Celtic Star can have an article, so can the SS Celtic Star! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedThat's good and fine then. Add those things to the article and that'll be great. Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Armed Merchant Ships qualify for the list of WW2 ships? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RepliedNo, they do not qualify to that list. Most merchant ships were armed anyway from a certain point during World War II. Anti-aircraft guns and in some cases anti-surface guns were very common amongst WWII merchantmen. However, merchant raiders and auxiliary cruisers qualify as they were simply merchantmen converted into warships. The reason we excluded merchant ships from the list is that if let them in then the list would potentially include thousands of ships. Also, merchant ships and warships probably should have separate lists anyway. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied I suppose you were referring to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added the convoy details to the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied Good edit. The article is much better now. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Glitra

That link to the DEMS has just given me an idea for another article. The SS Glitra should be more than noteworthy enough! Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great ref! I take it the book is in Norwegian. If you don't mind, I'll change the ref format. I find Harvard referencing awkward. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied Thanks. Yep, the book is in Norwegian. I was reading about the 125 year history of Norwegian torpedo boats when I came across this mention. Go ahead, change the format if you like. I've always had a good relationship with the Harvard style myself, but do as you like. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it. Could you please check the details are correct. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied Looks correct to me. Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalingrad Madonna

I'm sorry, your edit summaries are confusing me. When you signed one off with 'then we'll need more than a single in-text citation' after I had wikified it, it sounded like you were looking for reasons to put a template on it, and seemed put out that I had taken one off. I am aware of the use of templates, and welcome their use in this instance to improve the article, but perhaps edit summaries can be fraught with misinterpretations? Benea (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied I'm sorry if I confused you. I simply added the second template to underline that more citations were in fact needed. Citations are a vital part wikifying an article, as the Wikify template states, thus I only added the "Wikify" template to begin with. Wikifying is about more than just wikilinks. I wasn't "looking for reasons to add templates" to the article, I don't do that. I simply stated that more citations were needed, nothing more, nothing less. Now that the citations are in place there's no need for more templates. I hope that cleared things up and that you're not habouring any ill will towards me. Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm British and so can hate with the best of them. And in common with my race I also struggle when deprived of the usual tonal inflections, facial expressions and secret handshakes of everyday interaction, and have to rely on interpreting cold text. I assumed that there was something I wasn't quite grasping, so I'll put the duelling swords away and no harm done. Pip pip, Benea (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied I do appreciate it. Swords officially put away. Keep up the good work and have nice evening. Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Sæl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article - I have added this DYK hook into rotation at Portal:Norway. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed these were your contributions, but I had already added Trygg class torpedo boat and HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) into rotation as WP:DYKs at Portal:Norway as well, great work! Cirt (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Thanks for the positive feedback, Cirt. I really enjoyed writing those articles and I've got many more on my to do-list. I'm a big fan of your work on Portal:Norway/DYK, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for saying so, and thanks for your work too. If you are going to work on more potential Norway-DYKs feel free to drop me a note when they successfully appear at T:DYK - I usually notice it but sometimes I miss an update here and there. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied No problem at all, will drop you a notice if and when. I'm going to be busy IRL for a while now so it might take some time but I'll get to it. Manxruler (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, had not noticed that one, added it into rotation. One more for another set of 3. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Sidorenko.

The only picture I can find of him is (I'm pretty sure) copyrighted. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Hi there, very nice article you've got going. So the image you've found isn't PD-Russia? Manxruler (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it had to be an earlier photo... Then it probably is PD (taken during the war, not sure by whom); it's located here, if you want to take a look before I upload it. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Yeah. That's the same image I found when I googled Sidenko. I'm pretty sure that's PD-Russia. Go ahead, upload, to Commons if you have a page there. Manxruler (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'm not too familiar with Commons. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied That's fine, it was my pleasure. Are you going to add an infobox to the article too? Manxruler (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten. I added the "Military Person" infobox, as I couldn't find anything more specific. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Military person sounds right. By the way, the image is the official portrait taken of Sidorenko after he received the Hero of the Soviet union medal, according to this book. Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, missed that. :/ Well, thanks for all the help with the article; is there anything else amiss? · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RepliedNothing more that I can see. We might add some headlines, but that'll be a bit hard seeing as we really only know of his wartime exploits. Otherwise there would be room for stuff like "early years" and post-war life" etc. Manxruler (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

HNoMS Kong Haakon

I hope you are right... I actually remember that dilemma. I was at first convinced it was king as several sources used that, but I remember changing my mind when the source I found to be more credible used kong and most of teh ones using king were english. Also you have the tendancy even among semiprofessional norwegian historians etc to give much more credit to english sources than to Norwegian. And of course in the field of military history espeshially naval history in Norway a lot of the published books are by one off authors who have a particular interest in the matters (retired officers etc). My point is that it is not easy to get such minor facts right in such an environment. Maybe the Naval Museum have the documentation to give the definitive answer. In any case both names have been used. Inge (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Hi again. All my sources are Norwegian, and all by people closely connected to the RNoN. They're the same as are used as in-text citations in the article. What sources did you find that used Kong? As far as I remember you only listed some WWII forum in the sources section. Manxruler (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't remember. I hope its that one since that seems to be the one most used, but I also see the possibility of it originating from a misunderstanding becoming spread. I'm not objecting. You're working on it and using the sources so you know better than me. Inge (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Yes, I've never actually heard of that ship being called Kong. A quick Google search revealed that Norwegian Wikipedia, not exactly noted for its reliability, uses Kong in its Look to Norway article, an article completely without sources. And then there's a naval fiction discussion forum and that's pretty much it. Manxruler (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Sidorenko, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done, here's your "credit." · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Thanks, I appreciate it. It was nice cooperating with you. Manxruler (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Hope to bump into each other again in the future. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Denmark

I know it is already partially covered, however, I feel that it deserves its own seperate article since it was a battle in itself. Do you have a suggestion? Do you want to delete the article or are you okay with it being the way it is now? Thanks (Red4tribe (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Replied No, I don't want it deleted at all. I actually thought of creating it myself a while ago. I agree that it deserves a separate article, even though the Danes only put up a couple of hours of fighting there's plenty of stuff that isn't covered by Weserübung. It just needs some references, is all, and there are some very good ones at the Weserübung article. Manxruler (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied When I have the time, probably within the next few weeks, I'll give you a hand with the article and do some work on it. For now, observe what I did with the three identical in-line citations, it's called ref name=. Manxruler (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing text

{{helpme}} Why is a lot of the article's text disappearing when I push any of the footnotes 12 to 22 at References section of the Hammerfest article?

I am not sure I follow you. Can you reword the question? Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. When I look at Hammerfest, go down to the References headline at the bottom of the page and click for example note no. 20: "Knudsen 2006: 133" then all of a sudden the whole part of the page below "References" disappears, no more "Literature" and no more "External links". Its not permanent, just until I reload the page, still its very annoying. Manxruler (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it works after you reload, I'd have to say it's a browser problem. It displays fine for me, so I don't really know. Sorry. You may want to try clearing your cache, but I don't know what else to suggest. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I apologize for being late on this, but thanks for your help on the Martial van Schelle article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied Hi Chris. You're welcome. Neat article, by the way. Did you by any chance find out exactly why the Germans arrested mr. van Schelle? Manxruler (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to find out why. It was not given in the first source I listed (in Dutch) or in the Belgian Ice Hockey Federation history. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied That's ok. It's still a fine article. You should add an infobox, though. I think an Infobox Person would be most suitable in this case. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

HNoMS Honningsvåg

I have fixed some minor grammar issues in the article and promoted it to B Class for Military History. Nice research, great article about the life of a great ship! - Canglesea (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Trouble moving images to Commons

{{helpme}} I'm having some trouble moving the images Image:Froeya-370 59037a.jpg and Image:Olav-Tryggvason-370 58332a.jpg to Commons. Metsbot is complaining something about "source information". Help anyone? Manxruler (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done The images have been moved to Commons via CommonsHelper. --cmelbye (^t/_c) 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know they have been copied to Commons, I did do that. I'm just wondering why Metsbot won't delete them here, on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not an administrator...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

5/4 DYK

On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Honningsvåg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HNoMS vs. KNM

Tell me, do you Norwegians really prefer the ship prefix HNoMS when writing for us English-only readers? We have no trouble with Ø or Å, so I don't think that KNM is beyond our capabilities. Personally, I would prefer to use the latter, as it conforms better to the usage recommended in the style manual. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied Yes, of course we prefer HNoMS. The point is, HNoMS is the correct English term. We always use HNoMS when writing in English. KNM is the Norwegian language version, for use when speaking in Norwegian. The Dutch do the same thing, with the HNLMS pre-fix, they don't try to force ZM and HM on English-speakers. Neither do we. It's a simply case of translation. HNoMS is the commonly accepted English term. Have a look at the official Norwegian Defence Force website page on the our new frigates to see what I mean. Manxruler (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied Here's some pages from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence website: International operations Norway’s defence HNoMS is the official English-language prefix, always. I don't think the spirit of the Wikipedia style manual should be given more weight in this issue than the Norwegian government... Manxruler (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. You win. Thanks for the reply. PKKloeppel (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied You're welcome. My intention was never to "win" anything, I simply wanted to show that in fact this is the way the system works with regards to the Royal Norwegian Navy. Keep up the fine work. Manxruler (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons

Hello, what does it mean when you suggest a picture to be moved to Wikipedia commons? I am glad you liked my photo's from Lebanon, soon this area will be a war zone like 1970 again so it was nice to see it while I could. I am just wondering what is wikipedia commons and can I upload feature photos there instead of wikipedia?

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied Hi Eternal. Yes, I did like just photos from Lebanon. Really good stuff, you don't see much of that around.

Wikipedia Commons is part of the Wikipedia project and is a repository of free images, either images which are too old for copyright, or images released by their creators. This allows for the images to be easily used on all the Wikipedia projects, not just for example the English language one. It's also used quite a lot by magazines and such looking for good images, so it's common to uload images with a licence like Attribution 3.0 Unported. Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons shows how to move images to Commons. I recommend using Commonshelper for moves (it's listed at the how-to page), to the point where it asks you if you want an automatic upload or upload it yourself, then upload yourself so you'll get the image in your Commons gallery. When you sign up at Commons you get an account with a gallery that shows all the images you've uploaded to Commons, which is very practical. I recommend signing up to Commons, I too used to upload direct to English Wiki, but this is much better. Best of luck, you've got many beautiful and important photos that should get the widest possible publication. Manxruler (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wawelberg Group

Since you like military history, I was going to let you know about the Wawelberg Group article, but I see you have already noticed it.

Greetings. Tymek (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I meant the Legions of Pilsudski in the WW1. Were there any Polish Legions in the interbellum period? Your help is obviously appreciated. Tymek (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in the interbellum, these units were not Legions, but regular Infantry Divisions of the Army, named after the Legions. Wawelberg - Puszczynski himself in the interbellum served in the Border Defence Corps near Sarny (look at Sarny Fortified Area). He died in 1939, most probably murdered by the Soviets, but I have to verify it before I write article about him. Tymek (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User page up for deletion??

{{helpme}} What is the point of the green sign that all of a sudden has appeared on my user page saying something about it being up for deletion? Manxruler (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic! I'm checking it now, I will respond here in minutes --  Chzz  ►  04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because one of the boxes you have - the templates? - is up for deletion; that's all. Not sure which one - I will find out --  Chzz  ►  04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so, it was because the {{User:Scepia/Grand Theft Auto}} template was up for deletion. I removed it, and all is good. OK? --  Chzz  ►  04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Denmark

Yes it is - the author undid all my edits which removed copyrighted material, and I've reverted back now. Thanks for telling me. Hut 8.5 09:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - he's allowed to do that and we know he's read it. Hut 8.5 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't just change the odd word - then it's a derivative work and is still copyrighted. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 09:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work rewriting it by the way. Hut 8.5 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

HNoMS Kjell

On 10 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Kjell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for very much for the barnstar, it is highly appreciated—just as much as I appreciate your many contributions to Wikipedia too. Thanks, and good luck with the editing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Norway/DYK

Feel free to leave an updated list at Portal talk:Norway, and if things build up this way I can reference it and get to those DYKs one at a time. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ghaghara River

Hi! I need to get back to Delhi to verify my old files to set right the references (some are external links and some are regular under reflist). I will attend to it next week. In the meantime, I have added some photos today.Also there are three more artciles on Nepal's rivers viz., Mahakali river, Gandak river and Kosi river, where I have made total changes/modifications and additions. Please take a look to wikify. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian barnstar

Wow, I didn't even know there was such a barnstar! Much obliged, good sir. Lampman (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Norwegian figures

You edited this article yesterday - what a coincidence that I stumbled upon the page today, via other politicians named Irgens (ingen sammenligning for øvrig). Kjeld Stub Irgens is now expanded and nominated for DYK. Punkmorten (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work on this. Punkmorten (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kjeld Stub Irgens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

More on pictures. I just created the article Peter Blankenborg Prydz, and I reckon the picture here is available to use under the same licence as the one of Kjeld Stub Irgens - is that correct? And the same for this picture (can be clicked and enlarged)? Punkmorten (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good work on A.M. Strømsheim. I took the liberty of deleting the placeholder image. Per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, it has been a widespread notion that the placeholders are not really wanted (although their full removal wasn't supported either). In conclusion, it was viewed as wise "using placeholder images for famous people who make frequent public appearances, but not for private individuals who happen to have written a book or achieved notability in some other channel outside of public view". Considering that she wasn't really a public figure during most of her life, except maybe for birthday celebrations every five or ten years, someone having a free picture isn't likely. Of course, someone might have it, but why ask specifically for it? Generally, much is lacking in most articles - a discrete stub tag is an ok way to say this, as opposed to a glaring picture.. do you agree? Punkmorten (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• PS. To avoid putting too much weight on the placeholder issue, I will compliment you again for your work. A quite obscure topic now has a good article (perhaps even close to Good, considering criterion number three about broadness) at Wikipedia - probably the best source on her in the world, besides the 1991 book of course. Punkmorten (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly relevant for encyclopedia building, but...

Took a look at your user page. One learns something every day, in this case about an island called Herm with its own flag. You left out Åland though? Or don't you want to go there? Also I happened to agree with most of your userboxes, at least in the first five sections. Punkmorten (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copyeditting USS New Jersey (BB-62), the Mainpage Featured Article for October 15, 2008, I herby present you with The Copyeditor's Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sleddale Hall

Hi. thanks for your comments on the page at DYK. I tried to sort out the citations but one seems to have gone wrong with lots of angry red lettering - I can't see where I have cocked up. Could you help please? Also, how do I add footnotes? Thanks. Stronach (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I just checked back and a bot has sorted it. But I'd still be grateful for how to do footnotes. Stronach (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Abu Qaswarah

Hi, thanks for your additions into the article and the attached Swedish sources. I took the liberty of removing the separate section that you created and spreading most of its information throughout the article. It makes for an easier narrative. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Anne Margrethe Strømsheim

On 19 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne Margrethe Strømsheim, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk aircraft

Hi Manxruler

I've just uploaded a short article on the Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk MF.12. When I saw what a comprehensive job you'd done on the MF.11, I wanted to ask you to take a look and see if you could improve it at all?

We also need articles on the MF.8, MF.9, and MF.10 for the aircraft section of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and I wonder if you could help with these. Sources in English appear to be "thin on the ground". Of course, had they been British or American designs, it would be a different story! :)

Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't considered a DYK - thanks for the vote of confidence! But having said that, I still can't seem to think of a "hook" that would be interesting to anyone but those of us obsessed with vintage aircraft... any ideas?

Thanks also for catching that spelling error. The "Flyvebatfabrikk" mis-spelling seems extremely widespread, including the most reliable of English sources (like Jane's and Bill Gunston), so I was very surprised to see that it's wrong! Is there any chance that one is an alternative/archaic/dialectical spelling? Not that I'm questioning you at all - just very curious :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work in expanding it. I've also now put up brief articles on the MF.8, MF.9, and MF.10 based on the (brief!) information available to me. They could certainly do with expansion, but they're better than what we had before (ie - nothing!)

As you can see, I've relied on the Уголок неба site for much of the material; but I have some serious doubts about their treatment of the MF.8, which they have clearly based on this article from Borreminne. The trouble is, to me it looks like there's a typing or transcription error in that article, and for a whole paragraph, wherever it talks about the MF.8, it really means the MF.9 (paragraph beginning Dette skoleflyet ble stadig modifisert...). Unless, that is, the MF.8 was also called the "Høverjager" and had a 300 hp Hispano-Suiza engine? I therefore left these details out until they could be confirmed with another source.

Some specific details that are missing:

• the engine type for the MF.8 (if it wasn't a H-S, or the specific model of H-S if it was)
• performance specs of the MF.8 (Уголок неба provides a top speed of 200 km/h, but I left this out until the engine details can be confirmed)
• the type of H-S engine in the MF.9 (one of the H-S 12 family? but which one?)
• the armament of the MF.9 (Уголок неба says one 7.62 mm gun but doesn't say the type, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft says two guns, but not the calibre or the type)

Any and all help appreciated :) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks on the update to the MF.10. It is very deeply gratifying to me when I see Wikipedia's coverage of obscure types like this develop to this level of comprehensiveness. There are hundreds of books about the F-16 or Spitfire or what-have-you; but this article may now be the most detailed treatment of the MF.10 easily available in English anywhere! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10

On 31 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9

On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Norske Marinefartøy

Hei

Har du sett boka "Norske marinefartøy"? Eg kjøpte den her ein dag. Den er ei kjempereferanse til lista over marinens skip og til grunninformasjon i artiklane. Eg er litt skuffa over å ha oppdaga ein del trykkfeil her og der, men alt i alt ei interessant bok. Inge (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that might be since we are supposed to disambiguate by year of launch. I and I guess others have earlier disambiguated by years of service. Some vessels are already listed by year of commission and some by launch. Sources might even differ. This is a problem of course. I will work systematically by the reference work I have. If you see that links are broken etc. Just fix them. I won't mind if you change things. If the years involved differ we will just have to debate the merits of the paricular refs. Inge (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ops. Two vessels of the same name shuld both be disambiguated by the year of lauch. Take a look at Ørnen.Inge (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will ref things by the book. When things differ I will change them. If that differs from the previous, links might get broken since articles might be placed by year of lauch according to obsolete or contradictory information. We will have to debate the date later if that particular article is placed (in)correctly. I have already changed plenty of ships launch and commission years according to the referenced book. If I am going to go through the book and update our list I will not have time to check every detail. I rely on you and others to pick up on details and divergences. Inge (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In short: yes. I have little time. I have found a window of motivation to again contribute towards completing the list I started some time ago as part of the main article. I will unfortunately not have the time to proof read all the edits made according to the newly published book. I will change the list and add refs. If links are broken I will of course try to repair them if I spot them. In some instances that might mean moving the particular article. If I dont spot them I rely on other wikipedians to correct the articles according to the references. thats the spirit of a wiki. Inge (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have reverted some years of service. Those should be debated. I know these are difficult to obtain assured dates on, but I have provided a reputable ref. You have changed some whithout providing the same. The links might have been broken by me, but that might mean the article itself is misplaced...Or what do you think?Inge (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) It is difficult enough to try to systemtically update the list according to the book. If not someone casualy reverts one and the other year in between. I guess I will not have the inclination to revert the reverts you have made. Eg har ikkje tenkt å starte noko her. Eg har lite tid og eg er i utgangspunktet ikkje motivert for lengre debatt om diverse datoar. Eg veit at dr er fleire båtar der ein av og til har brukt år for sjøsetting og av og til brukt år for kommadoheis. Dette er eit problem. Eg er med på at diverse datoar kan debaterast, men eg er ikkje med på reverts der eg har gjeve ei god referanse dersom den einaste grunnen er at linken til artikkelen blir broten. fleire av artiklane er bygde på diverse grunnlag. Ta opp datoen der det er god refreanse mot det eg tek frå den nye boka. Det er bra. Dersom den nye boka går mot det vi har plukka frå nettet før bør vi endre til den nye boka. Eg har ikkje lyst til å gå gjennom det same punktet fleire gonger for å sjekke om ting er rett etter at eg har retta det etter den nye boka. Er du med? Tida er knap og vi er fleire om jobben. Det er ei kjempflott bok vi har fått i fanget. Kjempekjekk å lese og veldig god å bruke. Men eg vil ikkje bruke tid på anna enn å legge til det vi manglar eller det vi har tatt feil om. Rvkrig er uinteressant. Kva trur du?Inge (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree :)Inge (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits to USS West Ekonk (ID-3313)

I saw in your recent edit to USS West Ekonk (ID-3313) that you had removed some non-breaking space characters as a part of other edits you made. Please be aware that non-breaking space usage may often be intentional. For example, in the ship displacement field in the infobox, the non-breaking space between the quantity and the unit is as suggested by the manual of style. Also, non-breaking spaces are used to avoid unfortunate line breaks in the middle of convoy designations, like "convoy HX 121", so that HX and 121 don't end up on separate lines. I have restored all of the non-breaking spaces that were removed in this case, but please be aware of this in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing

When editing articles on Wikipedia (like Castle Rushen) please use the preview button to check any changes you make, rather than saving every edit. Saving every edit makes it hard for other wiki editors to track the progress of the article, and then amend them as needed Bleaney (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do the reasearch FIRST, before you start editing the article, then do one complete save. I could understand it if you had beeen researching the article over a matter of weeks or months, but as its all today theres no need for a mega amount of editsBleaney (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you take this article to WP:GAC? Punkmorten (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In a little while, yes I will. I still have some more stuff to sneak in before I'm quite ready to have it considered. Manxruler (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your field of interest

Hi! I think you'll find my newest article interesting. Punkmorten (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ready for DYK now, I guess. Thanks for improving it. I sent forward a co-nom. Punkmorten (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's good enough for DYK, although in a few hours I'll have gone through some more sources for some more details. Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize you might be preoccupied with other things right now, but: I had a look at Joachim Rønneberg, and destubbed it. It could easily be expanded with material, especially about the heavy water sabotation. However, the article Norwegian heavy water sabotage was entirely unreferenced, so none of that text could be "borrowed". Just sayin'. The article about Rønneberg has potential. Punkmorten (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As always you've done great research and work. The field of Norwegian historical biographies is really starting to flourish (quantity and quality). Do you want to submit a DYK nom or should I do it? If you do, remember to file under November 8. Punkmorten (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Say hello to Astrid Løken. Punkmorten (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why you didn't find any info on Løken, is probably that XU was shrouded in secrecy until the recent years (cf the book by Sæter & Sæter, 2007). Anyway, my exams are over now, so expect more articles to come:) Punkmorten (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any personal info on Sunde, the NSD bio was weak. I did respond to your DYK nom; verified the second and questioned the first. The article needs to mention the victory at Dombås. Punkmorten (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'll tick it now. I should confess that, in the sentence "150 remaining German Fallschirmjäger soldiers surrendered to the Norwegian forces", I originally misread "surrendered" as "surrounded". Punkmorten (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in receiving more suggestions for new articles or ideas for expansion? Punkmorten (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I read about some controversial sinkings of Hurtigruten ships, among others Irma and Sanct Svithun. I am not familiar with ship articles, not even how the titles should be styled. It should be mentioned that the Norwegian WP has articles on both ships. 1 2. Punkmorten (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another WWII ship is SS Westfalen. It needs an infobox. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Punkmorten (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rank

I have tried to discuss with admins how to set the ranks on WP:en, but got no clear answer. Imo "correct" way is to use the form oberst (Colonel) Eriksen and Hauptmann (captain) Hamel etc. Hamel was never promoted "captain". On WP it is so easy to set a link explaing e.g. oberst. What's your opion? KjellG (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo battery

Sorry, but i do not find "double torpedo tunnels" to be very good. Can you come up with something better? KjellG (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. The way it is presented right now is the standard English language way of showing that there was a system with three launchers (torpedo tunnels) that had two torpedoes loaded at a time. I think it works fine now. What specifically is off with the way it is? Manxruler (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

German at Filtvet?

Check this reference: Dr. Philos. Grimnes, Ole Kristian: "Oscarsborg festning - 9. april 1940", Forsvarets Krigshistoriske Avdeling, 1990 (Norwegian) -- page 8

You argue this is a Myth, but at least here is a dr. refering this "fact". Now you have refered to the signal log at Oscarsborg and I prefere to believe that Grimnes is wrong. Wonder where he got that ifo from? How to solve contradictive references on WP?KjellG (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean that the boats at Filtvedt reported German vessels? In such cases I prefer to believe what all the other sources are saying, especially since the signal log at Oscarsborg says differently. One has, of course, to consider which source is more credible and has the most authority. For example, the Grimnes ref, which I've got right here next to me, is 30 page booklet printed in 1990. In this case I prefer to believe the significantly larger "Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Kystartilleriet 100 år", Sjømilitære Samfund ved Norsk Tidsskrift for Sjøvesen, Hundvåg 1999". There also a Wikipedia policy on this somewhere. Manxruler (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point too, but we are now both considering the quality of sources. We agree on this one, but there might be other references too that not nessecerely are good and then we either ignore those that we do not beleive in, e.g.Filtvet, or we have to make some sort of comment to sources that do not seem correct. Do you have any system for that? It does not look good if the article is full of "on one side/on another side". Could we wright what we belive in and have a link to the/some discussion page? In such a case the discussion page may need a clean up? KjellG (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few hours, I think I have a pretty simple way of dealing with this issue. Just gotta figure out the exact method to of about this. Manxruler (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK submission of Castle Rushen

Hello! Your submission of Castle Rushen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. The hook is in the article but is currently uncited (the part about Magnus founding it); I am sure an easy fix. — BillC ^talk 01:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Castle Rushen

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castle Rushen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Odd Isaachsen Willoch

On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Isaachsen Willoch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Joachim Rønneberg

On 14 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joachim Rønneberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ørnen

HNoMS Ørnen was launched 14 Sep. 1829. First command was on 3 June 1833 and the ship was stricken from the fleet 1874. The second Ørnen was launched 10 April 1849. On a totally different note: What do you think about this? Inge (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Arne Sunde

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arne Sunde, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonconstructive editing

Hi. This edit of your is considered as nonconstructive. Please read discussion in Template talk:Lifetime. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit is ok to me. The other is not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, if you felt I used hard language. Replacing 2 categories and defaultsort with lifetime makes no good. There is no difference in the result. Sorry, but I am busy right now. I'll add you details soon. Have a nice day/evening. Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I now have some more time for an answer, yesterday I was really busy. Take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22. I suggested many times that a consensus is reached in one important thing: To choose between Lifetime and DEFAULTSORT+categories and make a suggestion to editors what is the preferable method. I think the closure was a bit hasty and non enlightening. Reading the discussion it was clear that many people find Lifetime useful and use it. It was clear also that something has to be done with DEFAULTSORT. Probably go outside the template. Moreover, since there is no consensus for a preferable method, to go and substitute everything with one method against the other is something nonconstructive, it will make no difference what people see on the screen. It's like something runs AWB just to move stubs to the bottom of an article. Finally, I informed about my actions and thoughts in Template talk:Lifetime. I have made comments about everything concerning this template, warned about possible issues. You can participate in there to help us.

Replacing BD with Lifetime is ok to me. for the moment at least. The important thing right now is to get rid of BD and handle Lifetime later. So, edits for replace BD are constructive. I find it is easier with my bot to substitute it and I also prefer defaultsort from lifetime but I won't touch Lifetime until a consensus is reached. I ensure you that if people decide that everything has to be converted in Lifetime I 'll run a bot to help in this. I hope my answer covers you. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Battle of Mount Hermon‎

Thanks for spotting my silly error in writing "captured" instead of "wounded in the infobox :) Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for SS Sanct Svithun

On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Sanct Svithun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and well-done article. Congratulations. Kablammo (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK update question

Portal:Norway/DYK/43 looks good. You just have to purge your cache. Go into Special:Preferences, go to Gadgets, and click Add a "*" tab to the top of the page which lets you purge the cache of the page., and hit save. Then you will see a "*" tab at the top of the page, when you click that you will see the updated changes. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out in this capacity! Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo attack

Can you specify what you are missing? KjellG (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're citing page 189 of Fjeld's book as a source for information about south directed launcher, ranges or 60 seconds. That page doesn't say that. Manxruler (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing page 189 says about the torpedo battery is the speed of Blücher was estimated to be 7 knots when she was first observed from the torpedo battery and that the first torpedo was launched against Blücher midship area. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Monclar

Appreciate the help, as I got sidetracked before I could finish the article. Also, I find things like infoboxes horridly tedious. V. Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK Lebanese Commando Regiment, Articles created/expanded on December 13

I have replied to your reply on the DYK talk page. I have removed the photo, can we proceed? thank you --Zaher1988 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you --Zaher1988 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have referenced the hook, and the first category. However:

1. concerning the equipment, there is not article that talks about these, but I'm into the LAF photos and subjects, and all arms mentioned there have been seen in photos with the Commando Regiment.
2. Same applies to the uniform camouflage.
3. The Main tasks are the main tasks of any special operations force, so they are true.
4. As for the selection and training section,all the text is from that source, which is a report from the LAF official website, it is simply a translation so where do you suggest putting the references? it will fill all that section I put next to each paragraph.
5. Operational deployment, I will make sure to put references for them, I already have them.

--Zaher1988 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I have referenced the deployment, I still have one, I trying to find.

Concerning the equipment, uniform, camouflage, can i reference a photos thread on a military forum??

"There has to be a reference somewhere regarding the tasks of the Lebanese Commando Regiment" << can you please link me... --Zaher1988 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, expecting your reply. --Zaher1988 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OOPs:P i read it wrong.. it's ok I will ask there. thx for the comments:)--Zaher1988 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Bernelle

Hi, MR, I have started another French millitary history article, this time about a French Foreign Legion officer who started of in the Grande Armee, had a tyranical wife and led the Legion through the very tough and very useless Carlist War. The French wikipedia article is not nearly so helpful as Monclar's. Just thought you might like to lend a paw. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of World War II ships

Does MV Pelikan qualify for this list, she was requisitioned by the Kriegsmarine in 1940 and seized by UK in 1945. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't want to make another addition that would be revered. No prob about the delay, enjoy your xmas! Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Drøbak Sound

As a someone who is involved in this article can you explain why it should by listed as a decisive Norwegian victory? The Germans took the area, Oslo fell, and so did Norway. I understand the Royal Family was able to escape, but they were not the primary objective. Olso was the main prize and it was taken. And to imply decisive means to imply a long lasting strategic victory. Unless the article is saying Norwegian resistance lasted another month because of the escape of the Royals. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. But I still don't agree witht he useage of the word "decisive". As you know this carries strategic implications and implies a long lasting success. Was it decisive to thwarting the German operation as a whole? No. So it cannot be decisive. Unless as mentioned above you are claiming it prolonged the campaign through the escape of the Royals.Dapi89 (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but how was it this decisive. It still doesn't answer my question. Was it a cog in preventing the fall of Oslo, thus Norway? No. It was a tactical victory. One cannot call it decisive just because they managed to extract their Royals and Government. Thus use of the word "decisive" implies a critical success in military terms. Dapi89 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

interest, Your field of

Hi again. Since you were going through my contribs looking for something of interest (I often do this as well), I started the page Conrad Wilhelm Eger. He played a role during the war, but I can't find much more on him. Punkmorten (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was new to me. Punkmorten 09:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

More news. Punkmorten 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration is fun. I'll start as usual, and you'll expand using your books. I noted that one obituary had a "fact box", which we can't use because Wikipedia is cited as the source. Punkmorten 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, articles such as this are copied almost verbatim from the Norwegian Wikipedia, which (of course...) itself is unsourced. I won't use any references unless I'm positive they don't derive from WP. This means I have to wait until tomorrow, when I can access pre-WP articles in Atekst. Punkmorten 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have got a hold of some Atekst articles now. In the meantime, see this. Punkmorten (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There, I expanded the article. The news pieces also mentioned a mission consisting of a mini-sub attack at Måløy harbor in September 1944: "De skulle sabotere Måløy havn, men en tragisk misforståelse gjorde at de måtte rømme landet fortest mulig. Det ble mer spennende enn noen ønsket seg". It doesn't say any more than this. Do you know what it's about? Punkmorten (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair that this ship bears its English name, when it was Norwegian for the last part of its lifespan? Also it's interesting in a WWII context, as it was bombed. Punkmorten (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One of Norway's finest athletes was also a Kompani Linge member. The resistance section is very thin at the moment, though, but I'm sure he's mentioned in books :) I will try to check Våre falne tomorrow or Thursday. Punkmorten (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Has been improved. The ROH source has almost been driven out. Punkmorten (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was working on Leif Tronstad. The source says that on 9 April, he "stopped in the Dovre mountains to organise volunteers from the local rifle associations for a line of defence". Did this have any impact on the Battle of Dombås, with Dombås being located somewhat at the foot of Dovrefjell? Punkmorten (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This says: "Men ved ankomst Oppdal var det klart at Oslo var okkupert, og han bestemte seg for å organisere et forsvar av Dovreområdet. Der var han godt kjent siden familen hadde hytte ved Fokstua. Ved hjelp av lokale skytterlag organiserte han en forsvarslinje ved Hjerkinn. Han sørget også for, ved hjelp av snøbrøyting, å hindre at tyskerene kunne lande med fly på de store sjøene langs jernbanelinjen. Arbeidet hans fikk betydning ved at de norske styrkenes retrett fra Østerdalen over Folldal til Hjerkinn ble trygget." Punkmorten (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Maybe the sentence "Only days later, Norwegian forces defeated German Fallschirmjäger paratroops in the nearby Battle of Dombås." should be removed then. Besides, though, the information available (that hosted by HiO and NTNU, among others) is pretty good, so maybe GA status could be a goal for this article. Punkmorten (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Only details about the heavy water sabotage are missing now, it seems. Punkmorten (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Irma (1905)

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Irma (1905), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Henry

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Henry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Irma & SS Henry

A couple of sources you might find useful to expand ship articles are Plimsoll Ship Data] and Miramar Ship Index. If you use the Miramar website as a source you need to use {{cite Miramar}} for reasons given on the Miramar home page. You might consider consolidating the infobox as per the SS Empire Antelope article. Mjroots (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same infobox, but the info is displayed in a way that makes the infobox more compact. Try opening the article in a new window and compare them side by side and you'll see what I mean. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the medal. I appreciated it. Punkmorten (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Sorry for that, i know sorry. Won't happen again.... --This Feels Right (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i'll do that..... --This Feels Right (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fredrik Kayser

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fredrik Kayser, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing the typos in my hook. Much appreciated! :) --Belasd (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Parc naturel régional d'Armorique

Hi Manxruler. You've added a tag Citationstyle to the article. I corrected few things. May I please ask you to take another look and tell me what else should be done. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. Thank you very much for your time and for your help! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. May I please add you to my DYK nomination? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. I wish I took it.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Deny Flight

Hi Manxruler, I was just wondering what you found unclear about the citations in the Operation Deny Flight article. I've essentially just followed MLA style for all of them, and although the references section is a little messy, these things often are. What would you suggest for improving the citation style? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I cleaned up those citations and I took the liberty of removing the tag. If you think we've still got more work to do on the citation style, drop me a note or just slap the tag back on, and I'll have another go. Cool3 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks again. Cool3 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Manxruler, I tried but failed to make the DYK credit be given to you. Sorry about this. May I please thank you for helping me with the article? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate your pointing out WP:RS does not allow Wikipedia to reference Wikipeda. In the 4 years I’ve been intermittently editing on Wikipedia the use of links as an acceptable interim indication of source for interwiki-translations has been debated continuously. Since I am only able to edit episodically (as an engineer, I travel extensively) I find the wiki-rules change between my editing spurts. So I appreciate the dedication of folks like yourself who are willing to monitor segments of the encyclopedia to improve its quality. This allows me to focus - in those periods when I do have some time to contribute - on simply getting new material onto the page rather than on mastering all the ever-evolving rules, techniques, formats & expectations of the Wikipedia. Thank you!

By the way, thanks for checking for dead links on the Austrått article – it took a bit of work to translate & I must confess I cut some corners on link checks – spotting the dead links helps.

I’ve noticed your excellent work on Norwegian articles over several years now. As a user of Wikipedia, thank you.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit: Grand Star

Just looked over your past contributions and felt compelled to recognize your exceptional work. I started to give you the standard barnstar, but noted you already have one. So here is the next level up.

		Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit: Grand Star
		For your extended history of superior contributions to Norwegian articles it is my honor to award you the Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit with Grand Star. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Future ship articles

Hi, I'm not intending to, got enough to be going on with the Empire ships <g>. I think that the SS Rowan would make a better subject! Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a slight problem with the template which caused the text to appear in the wrong place. Managed to fix it though! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The marvels and mysteries of cite web

Hei,

Sorry I didn’t respond earlier. Was reading through all the material on using {{cite web |url= html |title= |accessdate= |work= |publisher= |date= |language=Norwegian }}</ref> and the time got away. Only had time to run a quick experiment with ‘’cite webb’’ before going out to meet Herr Professor Omberg for breakfast, and then on to do what must be done for the day. But, now that there is time to write, this is what I understand:

• Using the cite web template assures one adds a fair bit of relevant information so that the reference is more consistent

• And apparently someone amongst our wikipedia friends “rides a robot” to identify new “cite web” templates and makes sure that they go into WebCite to request a permanent archive.

• Somehow – should the link rot, as it undoubtedly will sooner of later – someone will know how to retrieve the reference from WebCite and repoint the reference so it is still live.

If this is a correct understanding, then using {{cite web}} is a virtuous thing to do and I will do it. For this insight, thank you!

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent tips. Good to learn. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DS Corvus

Hi - sorry to bother you. I have created an article on a Norwegian steamship that was sunk by a U-boat during World War II. Is there any chance that you could look at the article and correct any errors of a nautical (or other) nature that I may have made? It would be nice to add something about her peace-time activities if you can find anything. Thanks for any help. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it's Gross Tonnage and not Gross Register Tonnage? Plimsoll Ship Data (Lloyds Register) says quite clearly that its Gross Register Tonnage is 1317. Column 4 is headed "Regist'd Tonnage" and the entries are Gross, Under Deck and Net. You may need to zoom in to 300% to see it clearly though. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why has the hook[6] been overlooked for DYK? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Museums in Basel

Hi. Is it O.K. if i remove your refimprove-tag now?--Basmus (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Dronning Maud (1925)

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Dronning Maud (1925), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for Gunnar Heiberg and welcome back, although I suspect you won't stay for long? Punkmorten (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gunnar Heiberg

On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gunnar Heiberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for updating the DYKs at Portal:Norway ! Cirt (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to uninstall dykcheck

{{help me}} How do I uninstall User:Shubinator/DYKcheck? I installed it, but now I realize I don't need it at all and it looks really bad when I look at the DYK noms. I've tried to remove the text from my monobook, but that didn't work, and I can't find info on how to get rid of it. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is still in your monobook.js at the moment; it says;

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool

Go to User:Manxruler/monobook.js, edit it, and remove that line. You may then need to WP:PURGE for it to take effect - to do that, click this.  Chzz  ►  13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did all that. And DYK check is still there. As is that extremely annoying screen split every time I go to Template talk:Did you know. That split is the main reason why I want to rid myself of the DYK checker. Manxruler (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you purge by clicking that thingy above? The line has indeed been removed now; if purge fails, try closing your browser and restarting it. Let me know below. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I purged, and now I've closed and restarted the browser. No difference, it's still there. I'm starting to think it might be an idea to delete my monobook, I've never used it before and I don't think I need it. Manxruler (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's gone! Balloons and cake for everyone! It seems all I had to do was to purge while actually in my monobook, for some reason. Manxruler (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, purge is weird. Glad you got it sorted, and bonus points for removing the helpme thing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird purging indeed. Thanks for the assistance! Manxruler (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lauritz Sand

On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lauritz Sand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SS Barøy

More info on the ship can be found here, including code letters, dimensions in feet and inches and engine details. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dks = decks :-). Not sure about the N at the far right of page, column header is in French and partly obscured. You can zoom in on the document to several hundred percent of original size if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Barøy (1929)

On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Barøy (1929), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Aerial warfare in the Winter War

Hi! You knocked out a DYK candidate Foreign support in the Winter War. So, this time a little bit more careful. I started a new article Aerial warfare in the Winter War. As you can see from the history record of the article Winter War (I have edited it a lot recently and still continue...), I added more than half of new stuff. Any chance for you to second this second baby? Peltimikko (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasan Nuhanovic

Actually it wasn't me who nominated the article, it was Vejvančický, but I told him to go ahead if he wanted to. I don't really understand what you mean about bare urls. Do references require elaboration? I do that when I think about it but is there urgency? Opbeith (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid and helpful message. In fact I'm quite unhappy about the wording of the clip "... that Hasan Nuhanović was involved in the first civil court action brought by the survivors of the Srebrenica massacre against the Dutch state?" which I've just seen for the first time now that you've drawn it to my attention. Unfortunately Vejvančický did not discuss it with me or warn me before submitting the application.

1. It's not a case brought by "the survivors" - HN is an individual claimant.

2. The case being "brought by the survivors" is a description more applicable to the Mothers of Srebrenica's class action case which is being brought against the United Nations rather than the Dutch state and whose first instance hearing preceded HN's case at the District Court).

3. The "firstness" is rather artificial as most survivors are likely to be involved in claims against the United Nations. The claims against the Dutch derive from the specific circumstances in which a group of refugees within the Dutch base were ordered to leave and the Dutch failed in a duty of responsibility which is being tested in two very specific cases.

4. HN is more than "involved", he is the individual whose claim is being heard in the case (which is joined with another specific case brought by the widow, son and daughter of Rizo Mustafic).

5. "The Srebrenica massacre" is a contentious description and its use makes many of the survivors angry, because it has been used as a way of avoiding acknowldgment of the findings of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. (There is heated discussion at the Srebrenica massacre article about moving the article to Srebrenica genocide - I have to declare an interest as one of the parties). Part of the background to this case is the reference to the anomaly in international humanitarian law that the Dutch State and the United Nations are falling back on a claim to absolute immunity which it is argued is inconsistent with the requirement in the UN Genocide Convention that states must act to prevent genocide.

A better wording might be " ... that Hasan Nuhanović is responsible for the first civil court action against an individual nation state (The Netherlands) for failure to protect the lives of victims of genocide".

Sorry for that complication, but this is an important issue. Opbeith (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I should have said that the term "the Srebrenica genocide" is preferable to "the Srebrenica massacre" - the genocide is the comprehensive description which encompasses aspects other than the physical killings (the massacre), including the legal deliberations which defined the crime that involved those killings as genocide. Sorry if this sounds complex and finicky, but there are important legal issues involved. Opbeith (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do as you suggest. Thanks very much for your advice. Opbeith (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Q

1) Hi! A Per Voksø wrote a book called Krigens Dagbok – Norge 1940–1945. I wrote an article on a Per Voksø but NBL doesn't list that book among his works. Was it him still? Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2) Hi again! Våre falne says of Olav Ringdal that he "ledet opplysningstjenesten". From the text I'd guess that this was an entity within Milorg, but do you have any idea what it really was? Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3) Hi again again! Do you have any sources on Reidar Selmer? I believe he was notable as the defender of Henry Rinnan, but I can't find anything about him. Should be covered somewhere though. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for leaving no question unanswered ever. You beat me to adding authorlinks for Per Voksø. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

4) Hi (when you return from leave)! This says that a person "var også los på krysseren Sleipner som var med i keiser Wilhelm 2s eskadre på de nesten årlige sommerferdene til Norge". Would this ship be HNoMS Sleipner (1877)? Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

5) There was a notable school named Hærens Flyveskole at Kjeller before WWII. Any idea what to call this in English? Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC) And what about Flyvåpnenes Felleskommando? Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

6) Know anything about MS Bel Pamela? No internet presence whatsoever, but I used a book as a source (in Odd Isøy). It doesn't say much about the ships's history, though, and the ship was probably not used for human passenger traffic either, so... Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft shooting happened some time in April 1945 near Sandefjord. Before that, the ship had been hit near Kristiansand (Røed, 2007: p. 199) <- unfortunately that book almost never tells you the exact date. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the time of Kristiansand attacks. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the Miramar link, where one Christen Smith is listed as an owner, it would seem that there is a connection to Belships. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

7) It's perhaps rude to ask you a question now during your busy days... well this is more of an observation. I wrote up Knut Lier-Hansen today, and Alf Larsen (who is mentioned over at SF Hydro) was not mentioned in any of the newspaper clips (one of them is visible online, NRK Telemark) - only Lier-Hansen, Sørlie and Haukelid were mentioned. Strange. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Norway Portal

Hi Manx. Saw that you added DYKs at Portal:Norway, and wondered if you were aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway/Article alerts, and if not I wanted to make you aware of it. It should be a great tool for finding Norway-related DYKs. Rettetast (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quisling regime

Hi,

thanks a lot for fixing and completing the uppity article about the Quisling regime that I had started as a stub. Your sources in Norwegian are certainly more precise than the few ones in english which I had previously found. I'll use your work to fix the French article and I'm sure you'll be able to make a fine article in norwegian if you ever want to ;).

However, I have just a few questions : are you sure that the name Norges Rike was never officially used (i.e. on official documents, et al) ? According to this source, it was used on state seals, which would be an interesting detail to add.

About the name Nasjonal Riksregjering (national government of the realm, if I understand well) : was it never used either (at least in the official proclamation ?). It would be an interesting detail regarding Quisling's relationship with the norwegian monarchy, which was not officially abolished, if I'm not mistaken. Both expressions are used here. So that would mean that the Nasjonal Riksregjering was officially proclaimed, and that Quisling later called his government the Nasjonale regjering of the Norges Rike ? Is it "Nasjonal" or "Nasjonale", btw ?

About the infobox : IMHO, it should have one, as it is legally considered a distinct regime from the Kingdom of Norway itself. The French State does have an infobox, even though it was never officially a distinct regime from the Third Republic, which was not officially abolished (they just stopped using the name Republic, without any official proclamation). So does the Wang Jingwei regime, which actually claimed to be the same regime as the Republic of China, being just a different government than Chiang Kai-shek's (they claimed to be the legitimate government of China, like Quisling's government claimed to be Norway's legitimate government). The difference between "state" and "government" is arguably tenuous when we are in the presence of two differente governments who both claim to be the legitimate embodiment of the state. Best regards & thanks again for your help, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

regarding the use of the infobox, I still think it wouldn't do any harm, since it was a distinct regime. It was a puppet state (or puppet government), but not that more than the Wang Jingwei government (though the difference was that the chinese collaborationist government did have troops, though they were completely in the service of the Japanese). The Vichy regime did have some autonomy, but that was severely reduced in 1942 when Germany occupied the previously unoccupied southern zone of France (without any opposition from Vichy); also, it had no troops (only in colonies and overseas territories) and was reduced, in the end, as nothing more than a pretext for having a french administration. I guess they had more latitude for action than the Quisling regime, but you probably know more than I about the activity or Norse police during the occupation (the French police was de facto put in the service of the Germans; I don't know what happened in Norway). If Quisling's (admittedly ridiculous) regime posed itself as a clear opponent of the legitimate royal government in exile, that alone justifies an infobox. As for the article's title, "Quisling regime" might be good (it's currently a redirection to the article, and so is "Quisling government"). Regarding "Norge rike", this site specifies that it was used on official documents. It might be interesting to ask them their source. Anyway, this is very much like the french case : the French republic was never abolished, and they just started using the name "French State" on official documents; just like in Norway where the monarchy was "suspended", so I guess they had to use some kind of name on official documents. If it is true, so I guess it has to be mentioned in the article. This is much like the case of the greek collaborationist government, which declared the monarchy abolished, but (apparently) never specified the type of government : they just used the name "Hellenic state" instead. So, "Norges rike" was probably never widely used, not to mention popular, but if it did exist as the country's official name, it should be mentioned. The name of the state is actually different thing than the name of the government. I think we should email worldstatesmen on that one. Best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think those websites should be contacted... but just to ask them for their sources, which can be helpful. ;) As for the infobox, well I certainly won't bicker over it, but I think it is a matter of personal judgement. The Wang Jingwei government was also completely ridiculous, and controlled only a limited portion of China (that is, the portion that the Japanese allowed them to control) although it purported to be control the whole country. So it was, like Quisling, a regime, which would justify an infobox. Again, I think we should keep looking for the actual polity style, because the country obviously had to have some kind of official name on its official documents. Governments can have their infoboxes, like the Provisional Government of the French Republic, which has its own infobox, and rightly so, although the country's official name was still "French Republic" during that period. If Norges rike was used in some official way or another, then it should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree that "Quisling government" (or regime) is a much more common name than "State of Norway". I'll try to see what I can find. best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just found some evidence : apparently, the state seal was indeed changed to "Seal of the norwegian state" (I guess this is an alternate translation to "Norges rike", although "State of Norway" seems more appropriate : tell me if I am wrong), in order to stop mentioning the king. So this would indicate that it was indeed used as the country's official name. "National government" may have been used as a propaganda name, though the best thing to do would perhaps to look at the text of the official proclamation (if such a text is easily accessible). best Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be surprising to learn that National government was the official name of the country, which had to have some kind of official name during that period (probably not "Kingdom of Norway"). Quisling's "rule" being a distinct regime (however ridiculous) than the kingdom, that would justify an infobox. Even the Nedic regime in Serbia has one. Being able to read norwegian (unlike poor me), I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find the best sources, but I'll keep looking myself. If the folks at worldstatesmen answer me and indicate me a good source, that would also be useful. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just wait for your improvements - while trying to find stuff myself - and use it later to improve the French article (hope you can find sources in english that I can read, but I'll trust you anyway on the sources in norwegian). Best Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Norges rike expression also appears on this website. Ok, I know the problem about websites, but is contributors are university researchers (I googled the names, which are genuine), so I guess it might also be interesting to contact them and ask them for sources. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I got a very clear answer from the archontology.org editor, whose sources are the works of Oddvar K. Hoidel and Hans Fredrik Dahl (english translations). His answers are pretty much what I had supposed before.

The country's polity style on official documents was indeed "Norwegian state" : "I conducted inquiries regarding the Norwegian-language form of this term, and was informed that it was "Norges Rike(t)" rather than "Norsk Rike(t)"; however, I should prefer to have someone look into Dahl's original Norwegian-language work".

However, there is no evidence that the name was used beyond official documents and had any propaganda based on it (unlike Vichy's "French State"). "Norwegian state" was the official name used for the country, but the propaganda name used was "National government" (referring to the government itself, not the country).

The name of the government was Norges/Norsk nasjonal regjering and NOT Riksregjering. "Najsonal Riksregjering" was what the Nasjonal Samling asked for in the 1930s. During the occupation, they settled for Regjering without the "Riks".

Hence, there clearly was an attempt to avoid any direct mention to the monarchy, which makes Quisling's regime a distinct "state" than the Kingdom of Norway, and justifies the use of an infobox. Even the Italian-controlled Montenegro has one and it was the most pathetic of all puppet government/states (unlike Quisling's regime, it did not even have a proper government for most of the war !). I must add that there is a slight confusion in the use of the term "puppet state". I'd say that the epitome of the term "puppet state" was the Manchukuo, which was a country created pretty much ex nihilo. However, part of the Nazi/German/Italian "puppet states" were actually "puppet governments", i.e. new regimes imposed in preexisting countries, like for example the Regno albanese, which was the preexisting Albanian kingdom transformed into a new, italian-friendly monarchy, or (once again) the French State. Likewise, the Wang Jingwei regime was a puppet government in the purest sense of the term, not a puppet state. However, the frontier between puppet state and puppet government is rather tenuous. I'd say that the Quisling regime, while different from Vichy in scope and means, falls into the same category : a regime which replaced a preexistent one (a Monarchy in Norway's case, a Republic in France's case) but did not have the time to clearly define what it was (hence the use of the word "state"; the 1944-1945 Hungarian State, while briefer in existence, is also exactly the same case). However, since Nasjonal regjering was clearly the name used for official propaganda purposes, I think this is the name that should be used in the infobox, although the use of "Norwegian state" is very significant. I guess this is both because Nasjonal regjering sounds cooler than Norges rike, and because the emphasis was put on Quisling as head of government, not head of state (unlike Pétain, who had his "Chief of the French State" title put all over the place). The official name would be "Norges nasjonal regjering" or "Norsk nasjonal regjering" (which one is more correct ?) As we said before, "Quisling regime" would be a fine title for the article. Since the "Quisling" name is less familiar in French than it is in English or Scandinavian languages, I think I shall use a title "Gouvernement national (Norvège)" or "Gouvernement national norvégien" to rename the French article. Best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Manxruler. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and have struck you from the list. Keep up the good work. decltype (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian War Cross

Yes, I noticed that after making the move. The source I was using seems to be slightly at variance with the Royal website. I'm going to have a look around for some better sources - I fear that the Royal site might not be a very good translation of the various medal names. Krigskorset seems to be a fairly widespread usage judging by Google, and [7] seems to omit the inclusion of the swords in the article name. On the other hand, though quite familiar with British/American medals, I am not Norwegian, so perhaps you have the advantage of me in this area! --Xdamr^talk 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Gabrielsen

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Gabrielsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Boo

Articles about air force officers are way too technical to understand for a regular person. What does one do with help like this? I need someone to complain to... Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ehrhardt 7.5 cm Model 1901

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ehrhardt 7.5 cm Model 1901, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

25 .... 29 DYKs

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Well done Manxruler. Such a Norwegian eclectic contribution to the DYK project. Biographies, motor torpedo boats ... etc Lots of contributions. Thank you from me and the wiki. Not bad for someone on wikibreak. Happy yuletide from me and the Nesse Victuallers (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Look to Norway

Sounds good to me. As long as they are WP:FAs, the more the better! Cirt (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you see if you can figure out how to do it? Teach a man to fish...... Cirt (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian polar explorers etc.

You're so nice. Thank you for that info. Hopefully I'll get it right when I download the photos myself. But if not, I'll ask for help! Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As for downloading photos into Commons, I haven't done that. I've been happy writing the articles, figuring that someone else has the expertise in adding photos. It all seems to even out in the end. Does the National Library of Norway site have an English translation? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lillebil Ibsen

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lillebil Ibsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee... Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tip

When removing wrong interwikis, it's best to fix the error on the other wiki as well, or else a bot may re-add the error here. Geschichte (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Skorpa prisoner of war camp

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skorpa prisoner of war camp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Time

I'm famous! Lampman (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian Leden

Hello Manxruler. I just created an article on Christian Leden. There don't appear to be any photos of him over at Commons. If you have an opportunity to locate and add a photo, that would be great, but no worries if that doesn't work out. Happy New Year! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Bergensfjord

It is quite likely that Genoa was her port of registry under Home Lines ownership. I put Italy as I didn't have definite proof. If other Home Lines ships are verifiable as being registered in Genoa then I'd be happy to state that for Argentina (as Bergensfjord was then). At least the correct flag and country is shown. Up to you whether or not to change it.

If you've got time, there is plenty more info to be gleaned from the Lloyds registers (link on article talk page), such as details of her engines, Code letters etc. I'm busy on the Empire B ships atm, only two more to do. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This source gives a detailed history of her war service. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd add the convoys etc in. It is unusual to have that amount of detail, and is worth including. I've done it for the odd Empire ship where I can find similar detail.

With the Plimsoll Ship Data site (from link on article talk page), all the bold codes under the PDF File column are clickable links to PDF scans of the actual page with the Lloyd's Register entry. Lloyds Register entry numbers, Official Numbers and Code Letters are in the first column. Note that c1934 there was a wholesale change of code letters used. You'll need to check all of the entries to ensure no change of homeport / code letters / ownership / management took place. Code letters probably most likely here given what we already know. You know how to use the {{ICS}} to created the individual code letter flags, don't you? Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Norman Lind

Hi! When searching for Arne Kjelstrup on Atekst, I found the following picture caption: "Trening i Skottland før Operasjon Sunshine. Fra v: Arne Kjelstrup, Norman Lind, Jens-Anton Poulsson og Leif Tronstad. Fra boka: Tungtvannssabotasjen". So I created a stub for Norman Lind. Would you happen to have more information about him in one of your books? Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SS Bergensfjord

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Bergensfjord, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Manxruler! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent warning

• [8] - Could you explain there is that what you are noted for? Names of ship? It's load?

It's also would be good if you'll explain who is Sergey Kovalev? Also would be nice if you can provide sources for recently added by you data -

• naval tanker Jan Wellem
• The German destroyers Hermann Künne and Hans Lüdemann were anchored alongside the tanker Jan Wellem and refuelling

ThanksJo0doe (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really sad to see your [9] - It's sad to see "word-for-word copy-paste job" (which is not true) and "replacing valid content with copyright-violating material as well" ((which is not true). I really not expect such from such noble editor. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just to not leave your accusations unanswered, you are incorrect in your statements. It was a copyright violation (in fact a "word-for-word copy-paste job"), and it is your failure to at least admit that it was which is sad. Manxruler (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lise Lindbæk

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lise Lindbæk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Grete Prytz Kittelsen an expatriate?

Hi Manxruler! I noticed that you added the category "Norwegian expatriates in the United States" to Grete Prytz Kittelsen. According to one of the sources used, Kittelsen still resides in Oslo, in the apartment designed by her ex-husband Arne Korsmo (as of 2008). Are you aware of a source that indicates otherwise? decltype (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, makes sense. I'm not familiar with the expatriate category. decltype (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! decltype (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Johannes S. Andersen

A future Good Article candidate? Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be an idea to nominate it when it's, say, 96% ready, because it might take weeks or months before someone reviews it. I don't know what more it needs, though, other than a longer lead section, and maybe a bibliography. An image... possibly? A native English speaker should do a copyedit, at least someone's always done that to "my" GAs. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are pictures in VG; perhaps one of them could be lifted under fair use? Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a number of newspaper articles; could I perhaps email them to you? If you go to my user page, then click "e-mail this user" I'll answer with the articles as attachments. As for the image, should we look for one from the 40s, 50s or 60s? Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing else obvious. His SOE file is still closed to the public, and even if it were open, delving into that would probably be crossing into the line of original research. In some ofthe other cases I've used recommendations for British honours to help fill out details, and some people might see even that as a step too far. David Underdown (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johannes S. Andersen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominate for WP:GAC now? Remember, it might take months before it's actually reviewed. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Oceanh and myself can be tasked to tackle the concerns that arise during review. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This native English speaker did a copyedit, but did not find too much to fix. Thanks for the opportunity to learn about a great patriot, even if he was a little rough around the edges. Chris the speller (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Lind

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Lind, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Habikino shooting

Unless you have a source that contradicts the Japanese language reference I added regarding the murder weapon being a rifle, please do not revert it. If you cannot understand Japanese, that is fine -- but unless you have relevant sources that contradict mine, WP:BOP applies. armagebedar (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. Manxruler (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The Japanese versions I've seen (including the one I used as a reference) clearly say that the (only) murder weapon was a "rifle" (ライフル) as opposed to a "shotgun" (ショットガン or 散弾銃), and being that this incident took place in Japan I'm inclined to trust Japanese-language sources since they are usually the basis for foreign-language reporting. armagebedar (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Odd Starheim

On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Starheim, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1940

I saw you, sneaking in when the {{inuse}} was displayed! Anyway, I've finished with this one for now. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Luckily there were no edit conflicts. You must have been working on a different section to the one I was on. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sludge carrier

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd guess that in this case it was semi-solid effluent. The ship in question was one of a fleet of four. I'd imagine that the discharged the sludge well offshore as a means of disposal. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gerda Grepp

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerda Grepp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kristian Welhaven

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristian Welhaven, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Landsverk L-120

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Landsverk L-120, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hjalmar Welhaven

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hjalmar Welhaven, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Odd Lindbäck-Larsen

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Lindbäck-Larsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hønningstad

Hey. Do you know if the Hønningstad aircraft are supposed to be 'Hønningstad' or 'Hönningstad' (ø or ö)? Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johannes S. Andersen

The article Johannes S. Andersen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Johannes S. Andersen for things which need to be addressed. Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've read the first part of the book, and have now reached the part where he meets Ruth. This is on page 114 (and it says that they married in 1938, but I'm inclined to think that's an error). Now I in no way understand that Andersen's first marriage lasted until 1931. It says on page 42 that Lovise left Andersen after a short time, some months after Andersen lost his job at Oslo Lysverker. This was due to financial problems ("det var for sent, han var ikke velkommen lenger, det fantes andre som var bedre i stand til å forsørge en familie"). This happened in 1917 as far as I comprehend. Why would they stay married as long as until 1931, with Andersen in multiple prisons (including in Germany, and he also spent some time in Sweden)? Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• What should we write, then? Do we make note of the split-up around 1917 and omit the mention of 1931, or do we make note of the split-up around 1917 and mention that the marriage (may have) lasted until 1931? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention that he had a female friend named Nancy (I don't recall any mention of them being intimate, but that's probably because Bjørnsen didn't dare to write it). They agreed to part ways before Andersen was supposed to sail to Canada. In fact he was all set for the journey when he decided to say goodbye one last time and in doing so stumbled upon a police officer who recognized him (pp. 100-101). Also, in Hamburg he hanged around with two not-so-beautiful (!) prostitutes (pp. 80-81)
    • I added it; chronologically it belongs someplace in the middle of the section "Criminal career". I find this very hard to do because Bjørnsen hardly mentions the month or day anywhere. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Good Work, I promoted the article to GA status but I hope you continue to expand the article but. --Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't have happened without you either :) Have a happy rest of break, and I hope your master's thesis will come out as good. I mean, why wouldn't it? Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Arne Dagfin Dahl

First World War

During the Battles of Narvik lt. col. Dahl was the sole Norwegian officer with previous battle experience, having fought as young lieutenant in a British unit at the Battle of the Somme in 1916.[3]

Your source is not a primary historic source; it's about war disablement pension. Source (in Norwegian): [...] Han var i hvert fall den eneste med tidligere krigserfaring. Som ung løytnant deltok oberstløytnant Arne Dahl i en engelsk avdeling i det blodige slaget ved Somme i Nord-Frankrike under første verdenskrig. [...] Og i alle fall den eneste som tidligere hadde deltatt i krigshandlinger. ... Som ung løytnant deltok han i en engelsk avdeling i slaget ved Somme Frankrike 1916.

He did not fight in the Somme Offensive. He was assistant military attaché to Britain and Belgium between 1916-1919.

The official policy of Norway before, during, and after World War I was neutralism. A. D. Dahl visited the British forces at the Somme front after the battle as the Norwegian assistant military attaché. ... and my source is Arne Dagfin Dahl himself in several meetings between 1975-1983. WZen 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haga, Arnfinn (1998). Alta bataljon 1940 (in Norwegian). Oslo: J. W. Cappelens forlag. p. 240. ISBN 82-02-17629-8. Retrieved 2010-04-02.

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Source question

I feel dirty for having used Folk og Land as a reference over at Johannes Kringlebotn. The following facts are referenced by FoL:

• Birthdate (corroborated by the Norwegian athletics statistics page)
• Places he lived. Fatherhood. (I added a brotherhood, cf same father + same places they lived)
• Membership in BUL (corroborated by the Norwegian athletics statistics page)
• Membership in two organizations, support of the Liberal Party
• Writings in two newspapers, starting date in Folkeviljen
• Small prison sentence

What I did not add:

• Supreme Court sentence. Touchy material coming from such a source.
• Him being first deputy to Parliament. Not corroborated by NSD POLSYS.

Feel free to remove anything that's unacceptable. Geschichte (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agnes Mowinckel

Hi! Thank you for your great help with the actress Agnes Mowinckel, in particular the nice picture! The picture has already found its way to DYK. It also makes it possible to try a GA nomination. Oceanh (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.1

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.2

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.3

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian monitors

Sorry, I just noticed your comment on my talk page; I've been a bit busy of late. So does what else does Thomassen say? Who designed Skorpionen? So Trudvang and maybe Thor were repeats of Mjølner, just built in Horten? Does he provide stats for any of these ships? Feel free to update the articles on all these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kristian Laake

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Belgica

Hmm, the source I used clearly gives a renaming to Isfjord in 1917, and states that she was scuttled by the F-BEF. Looking at the linked article, I'd say that it needs to be split into two separate articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your source stated that she was renamed back to Belgica and it seems pretty clear that she was. Re naming of ships, I generally go by the name which is most significant, in this case Belgica as that was the name she was known by most of her career, and also launched under and sank under. Dabs in this case should be as I've suggested, per WP:MOSSHIP, with redirect from other names (with and without prefix, linked from dab pages as appropriate). Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, reading between the lines, she was attacked on 19 May by the Luftwaffe, and then scuttled on 7/8 June when the F-BEF withdrew. Sure, the article can be reworded to give details of the air attack, and the claim of scuttling. If the date of the withdrawal of the F-BEF can be verified, then that can go in too. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Narvik Campaign

Dear Manxruler, I have placed a link in the Land Campaign section of the Narvik Campaign page. I hope this will be suitable to you. It links the Landing Craft Assault (LCA) as the craft carrying the French Foreign Legionnaires. Though not central to your Narvik narrative it is, nevertheless, important history for the LCA as this was the first operational use of the type. Thanks for a most informative Narvik Wikipage. AmesJussellR (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lom prisoner of war camp

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lippe

Do you have any information on Jakob von der Lippe? I read in passing that he was Commanding Admiral for some time. I believe he is the latter person mentioned here. Other than that I have found exactly nothing. Geschichte (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

One Martha Schrøder was a Corporal in the "Norwegian Women's Corps" during WWII. Interesting. Is there any info on this? Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an off-wiki question really, but is it correct to call HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) in 1914 (excluding the regatta) a militær patruljebåt? It was not a skip? Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At Erik Qvam, I commented out "of World War II" because I was not sure. He was a military officer and did receive the Defence Medal, which indicates that he fought in the war. But I still can't be sure. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• If you have info on him, then I would be delighted to see it added! He was more notable than I thought, it seems. I added him because I read through Sannheten om militærvesenet for my master's thesis. --- By the way, do we even have an article about Major General Erichsen? I must admit to not knowing that person or his first name. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

re Bjørnfjell Station

Thanks for your fixes! Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HNoMS Tor (1939)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RE ships pronouns

Its not a belief, more something that annoys me. No other non-living thing (thats what an inanimate object is, if Ive got that right) is referred to as he or she as far as Im aware, so I dont get why ships which technically are genderless as referred to as she. Although Ill accept that this isnt getting me anywhere and stop changing them before someone accuses me of vandalism and bans me. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Weserübung

Hi Manxruler. Thanks for your help. As you can see I'm new here. There's a lot of functions I cannot master yet, but it will come.

I know about verifying data, but somthing is puzzling me: when for example a number is mentioned in the article 'Operation Weserübung' that the germans landed a 1.000 troops in Copenhagen, it is not correct and there is no citation. So why demand citation immediatly when corrected? user:kredsner —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Re: Weserübung

Don't be so impatient with me :~) I haven't really figured out how these templates work yet.

But more important: there must be a limit for citations or else we're ending up in every sentence - maybe every second word - needs citation and that's ridicolous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kredsner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are books, but one of them is in the form of a parlaiment report which has no ISB number. So how to quote that correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kredsner (talk 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes the report has been published. It can be accessed through any danish library. Kredsner (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I think I get it. Kredsner (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear manxruler. I do this because this article is in a poor state. It's written by someone who doesn't know enough the invasion of Denmark. I might not have gotten all the tecnicalities right yet, but this article has a LOT of faults and inaccuracies, and it's only backed up by one - english - book. That's too thin, especially when I have a whole study here filled with primary and secondary sources.

The name of the article itself for example is highly doubtful. There was no 'Battle of Denmark'. It was an invasion with a few skirmishes. Do you usually call that 'a battle'? It makes no sense compared to 'The Battle of Brittain' or 'The Battle of Oslo'. I haven't changed the title though - because that calls for a broader discussion.

A small example of inaccuracy is the place of the first fighting which you (or whoever) names 'Lundtoftebjerg'. There is no such place in Denmark. There is though a small village a few kms north of the border 'Lundtoft' and a small hill just south of it that's called 'Lundtoftbjerg' - without an 'e'.

Another example: The commander of Fort Middelgrund didn't hesitate. He ordered a warningshot fired, but thanks to newly arrived recruits on the fort, they couldn'y make the cannon work. And they in fact had orders NOT to shoot for real, because the entire danish fleet had not been ordered on alert. (The coastal defense was under command of the fleet).

A third example: it's highly impropable that the landings on Funen had the purpose to cut of Jutland. The important thing was to capture and control the Little Belt Bridge in order to keep it intact. The first thing the germans did on arrival was to establish anti-aircraftguns.

A forth example: according to the military reports from the personel at Værløse Airfield the time of the attack was 0525 hrs - not 0545. Which corresponds with other information from the royal castle, where commanding general W.W.Prior just before he entered a national council with the prime minister, king Christian X and others - at 0530 hrs - recieved the message that Værløse was under attack.

And I could go on and on ...

Maybe you should acknowledge my expertice in this matter and work together on a more truthfull article instead of being offended by some missing tecnicalities. Isn't it more important that the information is correct rather than being wrong but cited correctly?

I'm just trying to make this article better. Kredsner (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Palatia: steamship or motorship?

Hi, I started an article on the ship Palatia, which was sunk outside Lindesnes in 1942. With 986 persons killed in the incident, it is the second largest ship accident in Norwegian waters (after Rigel).

The SNL encyclopedia article says "M/S Palatia", while my book source says it probably was a steamship (with a note saying that their sources differ). Do you have any more details on this ship? Oceanh (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks

Hoaxes can be speedied under CSD-G3 (vandalism), but I started an AFD to get it settled. Thanks for the note, I notice the user who created Battle of Akureyri also has edited Bombing of the Vatican a lot, seemingly inserting dubious references. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for MS Palatia (1928)

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Tankers

My preference is to stick to MV (or MS as 2nd choice). Although ship prefix does note that MT stands for Motor Tanker, ST could be Steam Trawler, Steam Tug or Steam Tanker, thus I use SS for steam powered tankers. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations

In a few words, the issues are:

1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
6. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your recent note, the citation templates are still grossly malformed but represent a "fast and dirty" method of providing reference and bibliographic notations for the "great unwashed." Full disclosure: I am not a Luddite as I had pioneered the use of library cataloguing for a decade, but those templates were meticulously designed and provided a stable and consistent output. The Wikiwacky templates were all, repeat all, created by computer nerds (no disrespect here, if I am addressing one...) not cataloguers or reference librarians. They do not follow any established cataloguing style guide but instead are a mismash of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide, which is okay for some undergraduate work, but is woefully inadequate to cope with multiple authors, (still malformed elements as they do not have "and", nor first, last name entry for second authors, do not accommodate et al. and rely on the user understanding what the input change has to be) titles identified as main and sub-titles for derivative work, no place for publishing location in the majority of the cite templates, publisher data not given a parameter, dates of publication, second or other editions, and still use either an ISO or other dating convention not consistent with the body of the article and still incorporating ISBN/ISSNs which are entirely an option "pointer" for a bookseller and not found in any other style guides. I tried for months to have the citation template designers redo their designs, to no avail, finally being summarily dismissed with a "harummpf, don't use them if you don't like them, nobody tells you to use them..." I can rewrite the templates, but it takes so much work, that I simply find it easier to write out the proper form in a "scratch" cataloguing manner that hearkens back to the dawn of library cataloguing that as a reference librarian I employed regularly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'Ole Raggie

In 1981, Ragnarsson was the vice president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society. Ragnar J. Ragnarsson was born 1945 in the USA, but has lived most his life in Iceland. He began flight training at the age of 17 and two years later earned his Commercial Pilot's Licence. Following a brief period of 'free-lance' flying DC-3s on domestic routes in Iceland, he entered a business carrier in foreign trade in which he is still actively engaged. Despite leaving a career in aviation, Ragnar has pursued a life-long love for aviation alongside his professional business career, and is still an active private pilot and aircraft owner. He was co-founder and past vice president of IPMS Iceland, co-founder and past president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society and past president of the Icelandic Aero Club. He has been involved in the recovery of two historical World War 2 aircraft, both of which have since been restored - a Fairey Battle bomber, on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon and a Northrop N3PB floatplane on display with the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum. For his participation in the latter as recovery team leader, and his research of the type's World War 2 operational history with the RAF's No 330 "Norwegian" Sqn, he was awarded the Order of St Olav, Knight 1st Class, by the King of Norway in 1981. Ragnar has spent many years researching wartime maritime aviation in the Atlantic and has written articles for both the Icelandic and foreign specialist aviation press, as well as contributing to a number of books on the subject. He has an exhaustive account of the building of the N-3PB and was involved with the Northrop company in rediscovery and the restoration of the recovered c/n 320. His involvement gave him access to the Northrop archives and his detailed article corrects many of the previous errors rampant in the N-3PB saga. The article is nearly book-length and is exhaustively researched. I would give him a pass here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both the Orlikon and Fabrique Nationale armament was included in the original specifications made by Cmdr. Østby at his specific request at the factory, and included in the contract signed on 12 March 1940. When Norwegian armament was to be substituted, it was due to the lack of availability of these original specified weapons at the source? go figure, was there a war going on? How about we include both of these variances from Ragnarsson and Bjørn Hafsten and Tom Arheim in the form of a note. I see these differences as most likely arising from the tumultuous period from March–April 1940. The original specifications of 7 March 1940 did not even have a third crew member, that was added later and Østby expanded his requirements to include not only a gunner's station but also the provision of a camera mounted in the rear cockpit, all changes that were not in the original contract. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

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

WQA and the removal of citation templates

Hello, Manxruler. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The issue is at WP:WQA#user:Bzuk and the removal of citation templates. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz

Hey, thanks for adding that information on the Spitzbergen operation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename "Free Norwegian Forces" to "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile"?

Since you have contributed to the article I wonder if you have an opinion on the matter. See talk page. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi! Why have you uploaded these images: [10][11][12]? You are aware that photographies of people are commisioned as works of arts? --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. Manxruler (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMY Alexandra

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced page

I dont know why you use that book as reference,because that book is history of that island ,and dont describe what actually happened. Is wrong in many case,it was from 7 sept to 9 sept,and germany participated with 608 men of the 349th Infantry Regiment not 600. We can talk on that operation disscuasion page ,no need for abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udisblizbadjoke (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:)

[13]. Happy constitution day! Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While reading old newspapers today I found a vessel with THE most spectacular name. Behold: SS Vigrid. I made a stub out of it, but I know very little about ships or how we make ship articles. I would be grateful if you could copyedit it (hence the "under construction" tag). Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• SS Vigrid would be good enough to make it to the so-called Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, if people understood what Vigrid is. I had Kim Jong-Il featured there some years ago (do you see how heavily vandalized that article has become?). Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for editing it. Why de-link the submarine U-95? Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, another fun fact... Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• What a coincidence. I picked up the Lie biography at the library today, before reading about Sunde. Good travel, see you around. Geschichte (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SS Vigrid

Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

50 DYK medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		You broaden our horizon for Norway's people and ships! Looking forward to more discoveries in that field, Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! :D Manxruler (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK of Baku Museum of Modern Art in Azerbaijan

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in weighing in at the DYK nomination for the Baku Museum of Modern Art. OCNative (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

War cross with sword

Are all War Crosses awarded with sword? I have a book in front of me, Ordener by R. N. Torgersen, which says: "Krigskorset er tildelt følgende personer 1941-1949". It doesn't mention sword, other than those with several swords: Sønsteby with 3 and Birksted, Haugland and Leif Larsen with 2. Is Torgersen wrong in not noting who got 1 sword, or is he ommitting it because everyone got 1 sword? Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There are 10 people with more than one sword. The sword was awarded by default in the inductions after 18 May 1945, prior to that the statutes said: "When the War Cross is awarded for personal effort in combat, the ribbon has a sword". It was awarded a few times to banners or units, those awards were without sword. The royalty awards were without sword, as were some awards to foreigners and civilians. So there were few awards w/o a sword. “Krigskorset og St. Olavsmedaljen med ekegren” by Gjems-Onstad is the authorative read on the subject, available online at nb.no. Paaln (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone got swords, according to the statutes of the War Cross, swords were awarded if the War Cross was awarded to "personal efforts in action", while people who had been awarded the War Cross for "other special services to the defence of Norway" did not get a sword. Should a person repeatedly qualify for the War Cross, said person would get a star for his award. The link I provided is to a book by Erik Gjems-Onstad, which should provide all needed info. Cheers! Manxruler (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Then I'm dropping Ordener as a source on the subject. Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gunnar Eliassen

Hi! The obituary of a Gunnar Eliassen claims that he served at Oscarsborg in 1940. This might be a lot to ask, but would you happen to have a book which can corroborate the claim? Are the grunts serving at the fortress mentioned in those books? Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for asking. I was at the university library and did not notice the blast when it happened. I was on my way to the suburbs when I heard about it and am safe. But I could very well have been at the workers' movement library at Youngstorget. Not good. I am guessing that you too are ok? Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category question

Hi, I hope you have time for a short question: I stubbed Per Græsli, but since he died of illness, is it correct to categorize him in Category:Norwegian civilians killed in World War II? What is the convention? Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

norway campaign

Light Cruisers are not major warships. not then, not now, not ever. No I am not confusing major warships with capital ships. I edited out capital ship on this article 4 years ago. I am basing this on common sense and my extensive knowledge. So answer me this why is it so important to YOU that this small light cruiser be considered a major warship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.67 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Light cruisers are major warships; generally anything destroyer-sized and above are considered major warships. Here's a good rule of thumb: if it can operate as part of a blue-water formation, it's a major warship. Minor warships are vessels like gunboats, coastal minelayers, etc. Even without that, given that Dr. Grove has established expertise on the subject area, and you do not, I think we'll take his word over yours. If you don't stop edit-warring over this, I'll block the IP addresses you've been using. Consider this your only warning on this. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

lol i have lots of ip addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.152.53 (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I can also lock the page, which will render all of those IPs useless. As for your contention, Grove is certainly not alone in describing Königsberg as a major warship: The Great Crusade by HP Willmott, WWII Warships by David Lyon, The British Fleet Air Arm in World War II by Mark Barber, Naval Battles of World War II by Geoffrey Bennett, The Royal Navy in World War II by Robert Jackson, Hitler's Stuka Squadrons by John Ward, and this is just from the first two pages of results. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Public Interest

Yes... I was suggesting possible places of interests, even though there are so many categories sites from people who already took some from the subcategories, it happens as a habit for the usual majority. Thanks.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok...A WWII place of interest where citizens may directly type in a few words, such as "World War II sites", but, as usual, so many users keep to forget or already know their links are already subcategorized. Personally for me, I believe the link can work for both. In other words, "World War II sites" is the main branch, thus... prisoner camps, memorials, or beachhead subcategories are the linked minor branches, or connected links, the "World War II sites". Ok. Thanks.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 20:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MMMhmm. Of course, to find "places of interests" (defined of, especially, interesting by the reader or just a main site) by just going to Category:World War II. Yes, I have read WP:SUBCAT, however, like I said that's my factual opinion just to connect categories and subcategories like so many pages on this Wiki. Later.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, subcategories are not allowed to be connected with other categories, although, as usual, some categories are mingled with sub-categories which are categorized inside the category box. Of course it doesn't work, but anyway astonishing user page. Carry on.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As always, it is to be more fluent in English grammar, and yes it wasn't sourceful, sorry if I bothered, don't try to make a world war out of such an edit. Thanks--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant the grammar of your comments, sometimes don't make sense, but please end the conversation war by some minor edits on comment grammar. I know you are a tremendous user, to various contributions on Wikipedia, and I have no problem with just a little chat, or your terrific sincerity, and if anything else to comes along interesting, about a new major article I might notify you, such as the 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan. If you would like nothing else further, that's fine with me! Carry on.:)--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN

Once again, Manxruler it is not overcategorization and it was only a few so stop whining about and keep the peace with new users.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You also forgot to delete Santo Tomas Internment Camp listed, however it is free for edit users, if in the appropriate sector, for everyone.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the comments made by myself and other users at your talk page. Please stop doing what you have been told repeatedly by numerous users not to do. It is absolutely overcategorization. And please stop shouting at me. Manxruler (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what your doing only I see many categories on the wiki page overly categorized, but especially the added Santo Tomas Internment Camp, but I was wasn't try to shout, yell, groan, or scream, but I just wish you stay safe out there, thank you.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Turtagrø

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WWII ship losses

Hi, I understand your point, but my thinking is that by adding that they were losses directly attributable to the war, those that were not lost through beligerrant action actually stand out. It also give the chance to add in details of the relevant action where appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion on these issues at WP level. Why not start a thread at WT:SHIPWRECK and let WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST know of the discussion. If there is consensus for your view, then I won't stop you making the changes. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Koht

I have been pushing Halvdan Koht gradually closer to GA status. It still needs work. Would you be willing, and do you have the time, to help improve thin sections such Halvdan Koht#Second World War? Thanks in advance, Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Same situation with C. J. Hambro. Now you know :) Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The task is still open -- hehe -- and now it's holiday season :) Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Re Hambro, I'm also glad that it's Xmas time; I have been delaying this a bit too long now. ;-) --Eisfbnore ^talk 22:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neato. I'll see what I can find. On Koht, I've tracked down some info, and some on Hambro too. Coming up in the coming days. Manxruler (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A reminder? Geschichte (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. Forgot about that. How about some Spanish Civil War info for a start, after work today? Manxruler (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be most welcome. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) PS - as a start ;)

Yes, as a start. After that some 1940 stuff, and then the rest of the war. Been working a lot over overtime the last couple of days. Probably tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Doing the pre-war stuff now. Manxruler (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

a gift

Issue of 1925

Thought you might appreciate this item. As a lover of ships and vintage stamps I collect Ships on Stamps along with the other types. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 shipwrecks

Thank for the minor tweaking of the various 1940 lists. They're coming on nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Wrecksite, probably not as reliable as it could be, but better than nothing. Of course, once a vessel is listed on wrecksite, it gives clues for further research. I've also noticed errors when going through the Naval History entries, and am inclined to believe them if there is a conflict of info. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Giske.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giske.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict on HMS Hesperus

Please be more careful when adding links. I was in the middle of finishing off the article when you added several useful links. I had an under construction banner posted and wasn't expecting anyone to add to the article while I was working on it. Please be a little more cautious when adding material to articles in this situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. Manxruler (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WWII shipwrecks

Season's greetings! OK, the master plan is this - finish 1941 from Wrecksite (W-Z to do), then do 1942 - 45 from Naval History and Wrecksite (in that order). Once all war years have separate articles per month, other sources can be added in, such as Warsailors, Convoyweb, Uboat.net and Ubootwaffe. Your correctiond are appreciated as always. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I'll use Miramar as well. Merry Christmas! Manxruler (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your continued oversight of these lists is appreciated. Pity you can't spare time to expand the lists but it's no big deal. Coming together nicely now, aren't they? Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mj. Yeah, they're coming along now. I barely have the time to go through the additions you make, and amend them where I see the need, you sure do work fast. As to adding ships, I did contribute pretty heavily to 29 August 1943. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Dabbing

Hi, If I dab by builder, there is a reason for it. SS Komet (Seebeck, 1912), SS Komet (Laxevaags, 1912). That said, I note that the first one was a trawler and not a coaster, so is unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Keep up the good work on the WWII shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem, I assumed that the other ship was a coaster and didn't check. I thought that ST stood for "Steam Tug". Dabbing by builder is sometimes necessary though. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's quite a few tug articles at ST Foo titles. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SS Lotos

Apologies, my mistake. I checked the Nov 1940 list and couldn't see it there, and then missed the wrong year when I looked at the source again. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bye DPL bot

I'd rather opt out of that function. Manxruler (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Post from Kiefer Wolfowitz

Hi Manxruler... You are mentioned on user talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as a possible sock of Rlevse, as am I. I have started a discussion here which you might be interested in seeing / contributing to (or not, at your option). EdChem (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded at his talk. Manxruler (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Language templates

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

Monmouth Cap

Hi, your concern with Monmouth Cap was a good one and has been fixed. However it is about to miss the bus for St Davids Day... could you assist if you have time as you will be able to spot immediately that your issue has been thoroughly dealt with Victuallers (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC) oops my mistake! Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the offer. I have pinged Nikkimania and the DYK talk page so hopefully we will find a "white knight". St Davids Day doesnt start here for another 14 hours, but obviously its tricky to elbow an article to the front of the queue at midnight Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Empire Endurance

Re this edit, what is wrong with The Times as a source? I'm not sure your deletion of cited text was the best edit that could have been made there. Maybe you'd reconsider? Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this brings up the general use of newspapers from the war years as a source of info. Some 70 years on, if further research has shown the source to be incorrect for whatever reason, then the source can be safely disregarded. If a claim is known to be false (e.g. sinking of Monte Rosa), then that can also be safely disregarded. Heck, if all the ships were sunk during WWII that were claimed to have been sunk, there'd be hardly any room left for the seas! Of course, all newspapers during that period were censored and used for propaganda purposes. I'd expect it to be the same with Axis newspapers, only worse. This shouldn't prevent us from using such sources bearing in mind the prevailing circumstances of the time.

I get your point about "hiding" military cargo, and surely toys and cigarettes would be a valid cover story? Is there any evidence that she was not carrying the claimed cargo? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made a very good argument, and I accept your points. Have you got much more to do on the article? I think that between us we've probably got a GA here. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no page numbers for The Empire Ships because I forgot to include them when doing the various lists of Empire ships. Maybe worth yelling at the WP for assistance with this. As to where the article is housed, it was a toss-up between the two names. I chose Empire Endurance as the title as the most significant event in the ships history (her sinking) happened under that name. Replies to my usual talk page plz, am currently on a public computer hence use of alt account. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've commented at the GAR re the issues raised. Have you come across any photos of Alster in your books? There is a photo of a ship named Alster on Photoship, but I don't know if it is our Alster or the one built in 1914. My personal opinion is that the article can manage perfectly well without an image. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		Awarded to Manxruler for his excellent work in bringing the SS Empire Endurance article up to GA class. I laid the foundation, but I couldn't have done it without you! Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It was my pleasure, a truly fascinating ship. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sleipner Commanders

Ernst Ullring was still a Kommandørkaptein (Commander) when he was decorated in December 1942 with the Norwegian War Cross with Swords (see http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Ullring), and therefore could not have been Captain when he was skipper of Sleipner. And since Thore Horve was Lt. Commander when he commanded HMS Glaisdale 1942-1943 (see http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4680.html), it stands to reason that he was not a Captain when he previously commanded Sleipner. Cheers, --Cosal (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5

The DYK project (nominate) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.210 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)