User talk:Woody/Archive 5

Milhist reviews March-May 2008

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

June Newsletter / Contest dept

I'm just updating the June newsletter. I should have it finished by nightfall. I've given out awards for the Contest Dept for May but it would be nice to include June as well (both to bring it up to date and to generate some extra publicity). Is there any chance you could tally up the June results and include them too? I gave Chevrons for First and the Writers Barnstar for second. If you find yourself placed first or second, let me know and I'll do the honours for you. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Slight change of plan. I've still got Project News to do, which is dependent on a discussion I'll start very shortly in /Coords. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to get the T&A08 stuff sorted (ie winners, it's ended) and include it, together with the workshop, in the newsletter and then I think we're hot to trot. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this can go now. Subject to the usual once over for topys etc. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) In a frenzy of activity, I've updated all the copy (I think) to reflect recent events and also added a "Review alerts" box to the armoury. Can you read through the newsletter please and see if I've omitted anything? I'm sure you'll also pick up some of my odder typso :) Thanks very much in advance. As ever, your help is much appreciated :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I glanced at the Newsletter because ... well ... I am noticing a decline vis-a-vis historical quality in MilHist A-class articles. Perhaps this is a partial explanation? My personal bias is that contests don't encourage quality editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Diff of reply Woody (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what to say. I think the perceived fall in quality of A-Class articles that you speak of, is more related to shifting goalposts at FAC. FAC now looks for perfection in prose, something that ACR was not originally designed for; it is more about checking the facts, highlighting some common MOS problems etc. I think that is at the core of any problem, do we want ACR to become purely a pre-FAC process, or a CE? I think if you look at A-Class articles from a year ago and compare them to output now, I don't think there is any change in quality.

To me, I don't see the link between MilCon and any perceived fall in quality output from Milhist's ACR process. Whilst I can see how the "Awards center" was not beneficial to the Wikipedia, and I understand your vociferous opinions on that subject, I don't see how MilCon has any tangible effect on article quality, particularly A-Class ones. It is more based around quantity, acting as some tangible measure of article output; harmless fun, a small incentive to go through the maelstrom of FAC/FLC/ACR. I don't see it having any link to the quality of articles. In a couple of cases, it has highlighted editors trying to game the system; editors shouldn't review their own articles and those that do, generally mark up, which can be found and discussed. It is a set of targets to reach, a motivational factor. Whether that will ever assuage your concern, I don't know. Perhaps open up a discussion on MHCOORD with any specific grievances? Best regards. Woody (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ACR is currently being shaken up. It'll take time for various reforms and improvements to work through. One of the major problems is that significant numbers of our reviewers are students/academics and this is a bad time of the year for them. I don't think Milcon is diluting quality: if anything the opposite is true as the extra exposure contest articles get means more eyes on them and the more eyes the better. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to fix a cut-and-paste-move?

Hi. I came across your name while looking through Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations (you fixed a cut-and-paste move on one of the articles linked from there). Could you fix the cut-and-paste move at To All My Friends In Far-Flung Places? That article (which is redirected to To All My Friends in Far-Flung Places, I presume due to capitalisation), has three edits in the history (before being redirected) that probably should be at To All My Friends in Far-Flung Places. If there is a better place to ask about this, let me know (if I keep working on WP:SCV, I'll probably find quite a few more...). Thanks! --Iamunknown 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Iamunknown 16:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Woody, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're back

Could you take a look at Henry Chadwick (theologian). I've done quite a lot of work on it recently, and was half-thinnking of putting up for GA. Rather outside your normal area of expertise I know, but that might be a good thing, as I may well have assumed to much. David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do today. Woody (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

HOW COULD YOU!!!!!!!

HOW COULD YOU DELETE THE CRIMSON TEMPLAR PAGE YOU FREAKING DELETIONIST!!!!!!!!!!!! CRIMSON TEMPLAR WAS A VERY GOOD RS CLAN AND THEY DESERVE A MEMORIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DO NOT LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.208.24 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite easily, per the policies and guidlines for inclusion. Woody (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Delfouneso

Can we unprotect Delfouneso's page now? He's part of the Villa first team now he's signed a professional contract and I don't think we need to wait until he makes his full debut before we open it up (although he did participate in a first team friendly last night in which he scored, that could technically constitute his debut). vivavilla 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pentacle - Under the Black Cross (music) ref on St. Nazaire raid article not worth mentioning/deleted?

Sadly comes to no surprise that metal music is deemed unworthy of notice/mention yet again. If it was a rock/pop band which had devoted an entire album to the St. Nazaire raid I'm sure you'd have no qualms keeping it in the article. Personal preference/views of user (shock/horror!) responsible for sweeping of unwanted fact under the carpet? Skulduggery88 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip Vian

I'm in the process of extending the Philip Vian article. If you get a chance, I'd be grateful for your comments and criticisms, either on that talk page or my own. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do today. Woody (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions - a fresh eye was needed. I've included them in the "to do" list on the Vian talk page and will work thru them. Picture is a bit of a problem, but I've contacted the RN Museum and maybe they will help (some HMG material may be out of copyright). At first look, I'll have problems with slimming down the actions in the infobox - he got awards for all or most of them, after all. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fi-wiki usurpation done

MikkoM (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Me, in trouble?! :)

I emailed Fayssal. Felt my reply was too long for the Talk page. What's he like. Haven't seen much of him in the traffic though I know he is in the Project and on ArbCom.

You have me confused with another editor in regards to tank. I was doing Artillery. Still working on it, but did a few other things to stay productive. I think the tank as we know it is dead, and I know this has been said before, so no need to work on that article. Artillery however will be de deliverer of firepower in this century as the numbers in other combat arms decline.

In any case, I'm considering my options after the last "incident" because I could not even go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since no sources were offered. The article title was change because someone in Wikipedia didn't like the original name, and this was done by a poll. So far as I'm concerned it wasn't even original research though that is what I called it because there is no concept in Wikipedia for complete invention of subjects for the articles. Of course the article title now doesn't match the contents :)

I'm thinking I'll start a straw poll in Operation Overlord to rename it Allied invasion of France. After all, Overlord doesn't sound that catchy, does it? Just need to find a few dozen editors keen enough. After that form an Aesthetic article renaming consensus group :)

However, the matter is far from a joke and goes to the heart of how Wikipedia is edited. It will be addressed by the ArbCom one way or another.

I had the time to go over my blocks, and found some curious things. For example one of the diffs on the first block does not appear to be mine. I was not warned for example about the Digwuren restrictions by anyone to start with, and no one tried to mediate, so in fact it was entrapment. The second block is quite puzzling also. The third block was primarily over BS06 interpretation of one word because the rest were either far too ambiguous for my thinking , or were diffs of the entire Talk in the article, so I would not know where to look. The actual definition of the interpretation used in the Digwuren is even more ambiguous, and I don't think anyone has actually read the Wikipedia policy definition on incivility, with every admin making up his/her own definition as they go. I certainly didn't see much elaboration by the admins over the block application on any of the three occasions. It seems that any diff will do. Does anyone even look at the original statement by Irpen [1]? Does my behaviour resemble anything like that? I actually don't think its Wikipedia's prerogative to modify editor behaviour. People either edit, or they project personality. These are very easily distinguished. Do I project personality? I think my only demand has been for acceptable sources.

What peeves me more is that editors can't tell the difference between an idiom and common names. I know people do not like to be told by a non-native speaker, and I make my share of grammatical and spelling mistakes, but idiomatic use is everywhere in the classics. What was taught in schools 10 years ago for English Lit?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply to you elsewhere--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block IP

Could you block this IP? Racism should really not be tolerated at all. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit late for me, a block now would be ineffective. Woody (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I need admon. help, please

HI, User:Amerique is putting false info. on my page saying I am a sock puppet of a so called House see my page and can you help me? Please do me a user cheak to stop User:Amerique from saying I am a sock puppet, I only a control freak I dont like vandalism. MountCan (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The magic pixie dust of Checkuser has spoken, nothing that I can or would want to do. Woody (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicago A-Class review

Yes that is correct (as I understand it).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Contest dept gongs

Could I ask you to dish them out this month and add a mention to the newsletter please? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple more bits. That's all for now, I think. Could you give it a read-through before releasing it please? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: The builders are still here: running four weeks late on finishing the bathroom! They hope to get it fully operational on Wednesday. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

False 3RR

Please be good enough and stop writing false 3RR warnings. Between 23 July and today I have only 1 time reverted Wikipedia user. All other reverted has been against banned or blocked users and because of that I will in next hour delete you false warning.

If you are interested in my wiki problems you need to look Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss. Bye --Rjecina (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To tell you truth I am little angry because this user is coming back again and again and again...

Sorry for not diplomatic answer--Rjecina (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right about reverts of users Joka and J. A. Comment but in my thinking not about revert of IP 66.217.13x.xxx, but this is another story. I am more interested about today situation. If there is not mistake we can delete edits of banned users puppets without looking 3RR rule ? When I say this I think about situation with "user:Decensi". I am waiting his block on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and in this moment reverting his edits. To tell you truth there is no need to wait blocking because I can call user:Thatcher (or few others administrators which are knowing situation) and blocking him this moment but we are on normal blocking road :) In my thinking my reverts of "user:Decensi" are OK. Your thinking ? :)--Rjecina (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 3RR warnings

User:Rjecina is deleting 3RR warining messages and has made 3 reverts in articles Jasenovac i Gradiska stara and Thompson (band). Could you please help report his 3RR rule violations. Thanks Decensi (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you:-)

Thanks, Woody:-) VMORO 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clueless newbie after 75,000 edits

Do I have a "move with subpages" tab, or is that an admin tool? I don't know why I am so unable to sort these move messes, but I think it's because admins see a whole different set of tabs than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful; everything looks good. You're a gem! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding contest department

Hi Woody, I've signed up to participate in the contest department this month, and I am still a little ignorant about several aspects, and was hoping you could answer a question for me? Namely I would like to know when I have completed fixing up an article as best I can, do I request an assessment or wait until the end of the month for someone to assess the article? Thanks, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for assessing the article, but now that it has been assessed do I just wait until the end of the month for the points to be tallied before I am entered into the table? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the wait; at least now I know how things work. Thanks for all the help mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Contest

Thanks Woody for looking after the comp...however you appear to have awarded 5 points for some start class articles, which are supposed to be 1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick

Thanks for looking, I see your point about trying to enlarge the lead, but the existing one does seem to cover most major aspects anyway - the only absence that immediately occurs to me is mentioning more about his writing, particular the books aimed at a non-academic audience. Otherwise I don't see what to add without going into detail which would be better in the body of the article. Any suggestions? David Underdown (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition

Hello Woody, I was wodnering if you might be able to help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition. I wanted to see if there was any help especially with prose and c/e, but would also appreciate any other comments, since I wanted to put it up for FAC once PR is done. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

VC

"merge two paragraphs in the lead, they are associated" - I disagree. One is about the process of presenting the medal; the other is about the monetary value of the medal. How are these associated? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see them both as being tangentially related to money. Having two very short paragraphs in the lead is distracting and breaks up the flow of the prose. As such, it is for an aesthetic issue as much as for an association issue. Frankly, in my opinion, it looks better now from a prose point of view.

Really? Certainly the second is, but how is the first? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Annuity, plus inherent value of VC, they are both about money. The Annuity is related tangentially to the value of the medal, and the annuity is related to who awards the medal. So in that sense, it is a complete paragraph. Victoria Cross for New Zealand follows the same pattern, and it has been dissected at FA. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On consideration, I think the "problem" is not that there are (were) two paragraphs, but that there are four sentences. I see no relationships between the first and third sentences; you see that the second and third are related. In this, I think we are both right. (The fourth sentence is an extension of the third.) Strangely (to me), when you put the three (four) together, they seem to fit. Good! So, even though it is for different reasons, and we don't agree on the detail of the mechanisms, it seems we agree on the outcome! Again, good! (What was that quote? - Churchill I think - "Two nations divided by a common language"?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad that is sorted then, all roads lead to Rome after all. As I said, not that much about close association, more for aesthetics. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hines

I went through your comments of Thomas Hines and corrected everything you saw. Thanks for the help. Anything else amiss? I'll try to find out what kind of lieutenant soon.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

In the event of a csd deletion, can you salt a page, or do you need to go through the xfd process before you can salt? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gothcha. Learning as a go along here, so input from others is very much welcomed. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find a page that qualifies for csd deletion, do you have to tag it as such and notify the uploader before deleting, our can you skip straight to deleting it? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Woody, hello.

Mr Woody,

I am a new registrant to Wikipedia, and I am interested in writing on the PLA, PLAF, PLAN, and the PAP, as it is my area of expertise due to my former rate during my time in the Navy. If you have any suggestions, or have a direction you'd like to set me on, please send me a message and let me know what to start on.

Unfortunately, I will have to censor a lot of what I know due to clearance issues, and even if I wrote it, I would be unable to verify it, but I should be able to contribute a reasonable amount of info.

Also, there is a message on the List of Destroyer Classes discussion page that absolutely needs to change.

Jaguitar (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bum steer

It seems to me that your suggestion to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in content dispute was a bum steer as they say here. My post there was not addressed at all. People just go to AN/I when the disputes get heated, and they get heated because there is no way to resolve issues of content when admins with "weight" to throw around get involved like Raul654, who goes from his feelings about something, to action, past discussion and mediation, there is little one can do regardless of the issue of sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, of course it wasn't in the scope. There was no source used! It was done by a vote. Can't go to AN/I over a vote because that's the "sacred consensus" even if people seem not to understand the place of consensus in article editing. So ultimately half-dozen people in Wikipedia can change history by a vote. Who needs to read anything. Just write what you like, get your mates to put a consensus together, and whacko, a brand new invasion is "born". I mean, bugger it. I had tried to rename an article named for a 90s computer game, and even failed in that. The entire thing is just bent out of shape. You have people pursuing vendetta's, the "pure English" society, the "give em what they want" club, etc. (struck out text)...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"remedy the situation in a civil manner"? Well, lets see. I spend weeks to prove that the previous title is an invention by a little girl. I rename it to the correct, and cited title as stated in the references used to create the article. Why, oh because that is the only source available for the subject in English. Raul654 then steps in with a declaration that he thinks the title sounds lousy. And how does he go about establishing a "better sounding" title? Why, its the last step on the process you suggest Conduct a survey, although "a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative." Obviously due to his vast experience in Wikipedia, Raul654 decided Mediation was not required, and this was confirmed by other participants. Were any other opinions or reasons taken into consideration? How about the one that not one of the "sources" compiled through a keyword search by Biruitorul can be used to reference the article! However, I had not asked anyone to get involved in what should be a discussion rather than a "battle"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Username on ro.wiki

Your request for usurpation in ro.wiki has been solved. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics venues

I think I've worked through most of your concerns. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

F-35

I've replied and apologized on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell

Thanks for the GA review on the above article. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Krahmer de Bichin

Thanks for rating Carel Frederik Krahmer de Bichin. I think we'll never agree on references, but I am puzzled by your rating on the second criterion (inaccuracies). If you could put me straight on this, I'd be glad to make the necessary corrections.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I rated it "no" on the references because it relies on one source for all the citations. If you could find another one or perhaps two to source them, then it would fly through. In terms of "coverage and accuracy", it was more about the coverage, than the accuracy. I have no qualms about its accuracy. Re-reading it, if you expanded the lead a bit per WP:LEAD, then it should pass the coverage criterion. Add an infobox ({{Infobox Military Person}}) and it should pass B-Class. If you have any more questions or want a re-assessment, then leave another note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I copied your reaction on this page, or we will go back and forth. I'd like to point out that I actually supplied two sources, as the article on the painting contains a potted bio on Krahmer also, which covers at least the Waterloo part. It is in Dutch, but should it be discounted on that score? I mean it would become awfully difficult to supply sources for bios on "furriners" if only English sources are allowed :-) Thanks for pointing out the infobox, which I didn't know yet, but will start using in future. I have put it on the page, and will use it for other articles also.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of foreign-language sources, we do have WP:NONENG, so assuming that there are no reliable sources of equal quality, then a foreign language source is perfectly acceptable. I did a few little corrections and I removed the Biography section header: it is pretty self-explanatory that this is a biography. ;) I am still concerned about the sources, I would suggest at least one more is needed, especially given that the main source used here seems to be self-published (home.wanadoo) address isn't an indicator of reliability. As it is though, it is a B-Class article. Woody (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Naval blockade

I'm curious what is the correct term to use in describing a naval blockade as a strategy and not an event. Would it be a "blockade of Cadiz" or a "blockade off Cadiz"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION

I put one of the new tags in the wrong spot. *Smack's forehead* Use the sandox! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Review Request

Hey, Woody, you wouldn't happen to have time for a quick GA-Review of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, would you? If not, would you know of anyone who would? I'm looking to have it undergo an ACR by the end of the month, so even comments on how to get it to that stage will be of significant help. Thanks! Cam (Chat) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've addressed most of the issues that were raised with regards to 2CanInfDiv. Cam (Chat) 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO template: a thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of the NATO template. I was about to do it myself but you beat me. Did you ban the vandal permanently? His abuse brutalized so many pages. Blue Danube (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alam el Halfa assessment

Hi, Thanks for your feedback on the Battle of Alam el Halfa article. I've added an introduction as you suggest but I'm not sure of the level of citation required for the lead. The WP:Lead guideline is somewhat unclear on this. Thanks. Lawrencema (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

John Thomas Duckworth

I was wondering if you can render assistance. For reasons I can't understand, probably during uploading, I'm unable to add the two images of the presentations swords, and the relief medallion at the end in this article as thumb images. When I do, all I see is the caption as a hyperlink. Thank you in advance--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind having a look and making suggestions on what else can or needs to be done to further improve this article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, I would also want to put it up in the DYK as the last Royal Navy commander to fight a fleet action during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Its not urgent--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

British Army

If you consider my behaviour in the matter of articles on the Red/Soviet Army to have been unacceptable, maybe you will consider the below as a statement on the British Army from a professional author

I became bogged down when at a advanced stage, when against my better judgement, by the urging of two academics with whom I have had professional contact, I used Wikepedia. In 488 entries relating to the British Army content, and a further 100 general entries (such as weapons) looked at, I had to return to my prime sources to check the validity of my entries. Wikepedia entries sourced, showed well over 1,200 inaccuracies identified, with many further contradicting other entries. One can only come to the conclusion that there is on Wikepedia both the unwitting placement of inaccurate information, or the deliberate placing of misleading information, in some cases given a reputable organisation such as a museum as the source of such information! I find the educational concept, that school teachers throughout the world, encourage their pupils to use Wikepedia as a source for the preperation of school assignments a quite frightening concept. Gordon Angus Mackinlay (The publication is THE BRITISH ARMY AT A MOMENT IN TIME - 1 JULY 2007: A LOOK AT AND FROM IT OF THE MAKEUP OF THE REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL ARMY)

I can only urge a different approach to article editing from one used currently.

If you would like a copy of the book, I can send you a pdf copy if you don't have it already, though you will need to acknowledge that you had received it to Gordon--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you want from me Mrg? If you think I am so naive that I am blinded to the problems of Wikipedia, then you are, quite frankly, wrong. Wikipedia articles had issues 1 year ago, and they still have problems today. The British Military History taskforce has 11093 articles, only 500 of those can be said to be anything close to complete and generally accurate. What do you expect? You might want to add that quote to Wikipedia:Criticisms. Woody (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

fracas on my page

Thanks for your comment, Woody! Tony (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1995 Pacific Grand Prix

Hi Woody. My previous project, the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix successfully became an FA last week. Having noticed your name on the peer review volunteers list, I was wondering whether you could review the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article, leaving comments on the peer review page. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category problems

The Category:Military history by era has two problems. Warfare of the Industrial era - this is defined in its main article as spanning from mid 18th century to the 1960s Warfare of the Modern era - this is loosely defined as covering the period since 1970s

The problem is that in General History periodisation the period that has to do with industry is the 18th-19th centuries Industrial Revolution sub-period of the Modern era (Europe, 18th century - 20th century) to 1945. Personally I think this should be to 1938 because the information age begun before the Second World War, still....

The issue is that there is a discord in the articles that puts military history out of synchronisation with the prevalent thinking in the rest of the Discipline of History on what is defines as Modern History (which is a taught subject). Further, there is a very high degree of confusion between the main topic article for the Category:Warfare of the Industrial era titled Industrial warfare, and the Economic warfare. I fact The "industrial" part refers only to the means of production due to improved manufacturing processes. The attacks on industries by air attacks were not industrial as such of course. Although many authors point to the "large armies in their millions" in fact the armies of the two world wars still represented only about 10-15% of the total national population, and even during the French and Napoleonic wars the casualties were about 6% of population over their duration. As you probably know in fact the casualties in the forces have declined, but casualties on the civilian populations increased (a direct reversal of the ancient warfare) that is only reflecting on the quantity of military munitions delivered and not on any other "industrialisation" of warfare.

In any case, I would propose that instead of the current

Warfare of the Ancient era (10)

Warfare of the Medieval era (23)

Warfare of the Early Modern era (12)

Warfare of the Industrial era (10)

Warfare of the Modern era (8)

the MilHist uses

Warfare of the Ancient era

Warfare of the Medieval era

Warfare of the Early Modern era

Warfare of the Modern era (with content of the Industrial Warfare article)

Warfare of the Current era (with content of the Modern Warfare article)

This would bring Military History inline with the General History periodisation (PS. This is being copied to the two articles above for discussion)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the warning

ever so kind of you to give me a warning even though i have already tried discussing the edits with the user, have in the past discussed it on the article talk page, and have also asked for page protection to prevent vandalism.

but thanks for giving me a warning that i may be blocked even though i am trying to preserve the quality and NPOV of the article.

i obviously must be out of line, well done for spotting this! Perry mason (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Photographs from MOD site

Thanks for raising the issue about the photographs, I think the issue revolves around the assumption that if an image is on a copyrighted website then the image is it's self copyrighted, this is not actually the case. In all the cases you raised I had check the images were not actually copyrighted by the MoD. Indeed the MoD did not even take the photographs, as is the case with many other images on the MoD web sites. They are often sourced from colleagues and family of service-persons. Indeed if the image is taken by a serving service-person as part of their duties the MoD will use a tag-line under the photograph with the photographers details.

This is the case with the images you refer to, although sourced from the MoD website NONE of them is copyrighted by the MoD, they have all been released into the public domain for press use by the original authors. If you care to contact the MoD press office they will confirm this.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Trevor Marron (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Perhaps?

As I won't be able to contact the press office at the MoD again now until Wednesday perhaps we should consider re-tagging the images under the 'Fair Use' clause as they have ALL been used outside the MoD's web site, including the national UK press, and they also meet all the other requirements for the fair use clause. Also as most of them are of dead service personnel a free replacement image can not be reasonably found or created.

Trevor Marron (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

The worst of the really dirty building is over and the army of chavs has left: all that remains is an eternity of putting things straight, cleaning and selective redecorating. That much I can live with :) Anyhow, the foul weather and the building hiatus means we've decided to take a short break. We're off this afternoon and back on 5th September. Apart from the leisurely drives down (24-26 Aug) and back (2-4 Sep), we'll have reliable highspeed internet the whole time. Could you spare the time please to keep an eye on my talk page for me and deal with any urgent coordinator/admin stuff that crops up? Trusting that all is well with you, all the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

"(→See also: these are all covered in navbox)" - Yes, they are, aren't they. I hadn't noticed. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

VCs by campaign

I can't immediately thinkn of anything - I did intitially wonder if the Russian VCs in the aftermath of WWI had been double-coutned, but that doesn't seem to be the case. However, I do only count 1359, not 1360 in the lists (unless you were includin Apiata as well?). David Underdown (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The TNA register only seems to get to 627 WWI VCs, you find 608 if you search on 1948-1918 war which is (obviously) how those have been categorised, and 19 in the list of those you have been missed off the main registers (though I could easily have overlooked a few in that). David Underdown (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've a feeling I did find someone who didn't appear on the Gazette index, but did receive a WWI VC, unfortunately I can't remember who it was off the top of my head. I can try and double-check (if I have time) any spreadsheets etc - my email is enabled. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

another improper page move by copy and past and redirect of old one

Hi... Since you were so helpful on sorting out the copied and pasted page of that List of alleged haunted locations / Haunted Places / List of allegedly haunted places / List of reportedly haunted locations, I thought I'd alert you to a situation that may need you or someone else's attention. Yanartaş is an article about some region that one ancient source theorized was the inspiration for the Chimera myth, though others came up with other explanations and there is no widespread modern belief that this Yanartaş came first... except among some people who live in the area and want to promote it as such. This was all taken care of in the past, and Chimaera (geography) was redirected to Yanartaş.

Suddenly years later now someone showed up and made a brand new article Chimera (geography) that was a copy and paste of the Yanartaş (perhaps with some edits) so that there was no history of edits, and then they redirected the two previously mentioned articles to the new article. Obviously this is not how we do things at all. I undid it, but I bring it to your attention so perhaps you might either watchlist them and watch out for it (if this new editor is the same as the old editor, I expect him or her to be very aggressive in trying to have his or her way) or perhaps go ahead and explain how things are done.

Thanks. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still some bizarre actions going on with this article... The editor who had tried to edit war in the past over his idea that the theory of the origin of the myth should be presented as a fact showed up again to argue for renaming the article and has also reverted all of the changes made in more than a year to get back to his preferred version. The new editor and also some other editor whose name I don't recognize are both there trying to claim that this had always been decided and that I "returned" to try to "doggedly" ignore some consensus that they claim they had established, despite only one of them having edited the page ever. They're also making highly aggressive comments bordering on personal attacks. Further input could be helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:(VC) disambiguator

Why are you removing the VC dab from articles? This is a very commonly used disambiguator, and is the convention for the names. I suggest you try and find some consensus for this, I notice Michael Murphy has been reverted already. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Most (if not almost all) other British Army officers have that as a disambiguator, so I thought the same should apply to those with (VC). Could you point me in the direction of the policy which says to use (VC), if there is one, or is that just what was used when the articles were written? Thanks, Craigy (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No policy (though there is no naming policy anywhere), not even a guideline, simply the convention that has developed. Originally they were at full names when moved over during the Victoria Cross reference migration project. Since then, VC has become the common disambiguator for VC recipients. How would you deal with John Ryan (VC 1857), John Ryan (VC 1863) and John Ryan (VC 1918)? Woody (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, quite a question! I hadn't realised so many had the (VC) disambiguation. It's probably best, to keep the peace, that I leave it for now. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Craigy (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if there's a policy, but normally we're effectively using the disambiguator to describe what gives the article subject their notability, and distinguish them on that basis from someone else of the same name. Notability is automatically conferred by being a recipient of the VC, recipients may not otherwise have had a sufficiently notable military career to actually be notable on those grounds. David Underdown (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Drudge Report

I think that it is an important core characteristic of any article, to have the first paragraph sum up the essentials of the whole, and a core essential in understanding the Drudge Report is knowing that it does have an obvious conservative bias. The article itself proves it. Perry wishes for more proof but I disagree. Please help me contact the appropriate wiki editors or whoever to help resolve this stand off we have going. Thanks. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearson

I should have full text copies of various Times articles on him arriving by email shortly. I don't know if you have access to the archive, so if you drop me a line I should be able to forward them to you if you don't. David Underdown (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Avoiding nepotism

Thanks for the message. It's lovely down here and we've mostly been wandering from one good meal to the next. If you mail me a postal address, I can send you a bottle of the Foreign Legion Officers' Mess house red wine when I get back. (I'll explain another time.) Otherwise, I've assessed your entries, leaving the FLC pending the result. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That darn move thing again

FYI, [2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Clayton

Hi mate, saw u assessed Chris Clayton a while ago. I've rewrote it, I think it meets the checklist for B now, would just like confirmation from you as you were the original assessor. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons

You're renamed. Let me know if it works out (or doesn't). —Giggy 06:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Hi Woody, I would just like to thank you for your supporting the promotion of the article Harry Murray to A-Class status. You were correct about it actually being Mount Thompson Crematorium, but was just a slight error in my typing. I will now attempt to take the article to featured status, and prey that the article passes! Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Sahagún

Hi, I've extended the citations considerably and added a little more text, though it wasn't a very large scale battle, I might be worth another look. The Battle of Myriokephalon is now, I consider, also a very much improved entry. Urselius (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews. I've beefed up the intro and added some more information, but for an action that took perhaps an hour at most there is only so much you can say.Urselius (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

August Newsletter

May I trouble you to give it the once over for typos and release it please to Brownbot when you're done? Many thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yep, it is getting chunkier, which can't be a bad thing, and I'm delighted to see that Milcon is going great guns :) I'll explain the FL connection some other time; I wasn't, of course, actually in it or anything strenuous like that! We're leaving Provence just after breakfast for the run home (via Lausanne, Riquewihr and Trier). I'll try to log on en route but that depends on availability of cabled connections. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Contest Department

Hi Woody, I was looking through the scores at the contest department, and I saw that when you graded Harry Murray you classed it as GA when it passed for A-Class some days ago. I was wondering was this just a mistake, or is there a particular reason for doing so? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up, Woody, but according to the table it is 15 points for taking an article from start to A-class, not 10. Lol. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound ungrateful for all of your hard work on the contest, but shouldn't the score for SS Pennsylvanian have been 16 (None → A), rather than 10? — Bellhalla (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, all A-Class scores were under-scored this month. I have now amended them. Woody (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, never mind. I will just put it down to the fact that your a busy man. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pearson DYK

On 2 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Pearson (soldier), 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.

-- thx Victuallers (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

Hello, there may be a position open for another FLRC delegate, and I was wondering if you were at all interested in the position. You can find out more here. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Ramadi (2006)

Hi, I'm sorry if I have the wrong person, but I'm currently in a dispute about the content of the Battle of Ramadi (2006) article. I think I'm getting rather heated about it, so I'd like you (or if you can suggest someone else more appropriate) to take a look at it and suggest how the issue might be resolved. Thank you. Lawrencema (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross - NZ VC etc. thefts

Hi Woody. While I agree that what was there needed improvement, I'm not altogether sure that what you have put there solves all the problems.

• It said: "Lord Ashcroft contributed significantly to this amount". You replaced that with: "significantly paid for by Lord Ashcroft".
  • I'm not very sure what "significantly paid for" actually means.
  • The original implies that Ashcroft didn't pay ALL of the reward. If one removes "significantly" from your change, one is left with "paid for by Lord Ashcroft". That's not the same. I'm not sure what your addition of "significantly" was meant to mean. Further, I'm not sure what the addition of "significantly" actually does mean.
  • What was wrong with "Lord Ashcroft contributed significantly to this amount" that lead you to change it?
    • This section was far too long, we could just remove him altogether. Significantly means he contributed a significant part of the reward, exactly as it says before. Woody (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• It said: "New Zealand Police announced all the medals had been recovered as a result of the reward". You removed "as a result of the reward". Why?
  • Not backed up by sources, especially as the "gangster" who recovered them says it wasn't about the money. Woody (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• It said: "A high profile Auckland lawyer, Chris Comeskey, played a key part in the drawn out negotiations to safely return the medals." You removed that sentence. Why?
  • Has no relevance, this is about the medals, not Chris Comesekey. Woody (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Several versions ago you reverted it to say: "While there has been much public debate about the need to offer reward money in order to retrieve the medals, there is universal relief that they have been safely returned". Yes, the tenses needed changing, but now it just says: "There was much public debate about the need to offer reward money in order to retrieve the medals." This reader feels that it now seems "unfinished" ...
  • I didn't change it because of the tenses; I changed it because it was fluff, and not encyclopedic. It is grammatically correct and it is already made clear that they have been recovered. Woody (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• So in summary, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to make sure we don't place too much emphasis on recent events. As the sources shows, the thefts of a VC are not rare, so why concentrate on this one, and dedicate half the section to it? Woody (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I agree with you, and with your even more recent changes. Thanks for the clarifications and explanations. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to clarify, thanks for picking me up on it; the article is in a better shape now as a result! Regards. Woody (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aston Villa

Moved to Talk:Aston Villa F.C. seasons... Woody (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All the hyperlinks are tidyed but the W and R/U are the same as Chelsea

What about line-ups for finals. I have listed with a commet—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 September 2008

What about them? If you could add to or expand them, that would be great. I haven't got round to them yet, I have been concentrating on the main Villa articles. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Highbury (Former home of Arsenal) the FA Cup semis are on the page so why not Villa Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)

• 1887 FA Cup Final No Line-up
• 1892 FA Cup Final No Manager and Captain
• 1895 FA Cup Final No Manager and Captain
• 1897 FA Cup Final No Manager and Captain
• 1905 FA Cup Final No Line-up
• 1913 FA Cup Final Model Example (No Captain)
• 1920 FA Cup Final No Line-up
• 1924 FA Cup Final No Line-up
• 1957 FA Cup Final Model Example
• 1961 Football League Cup Final No Line-up
• 1963 Football League Cup Final Model Example (No Captain)
• 1971 Football League Cup Final No Line-up
• 1975 Football League Cup Final Model Example
• 1977 Football League Cup Final No Line-ups
• 1982 European Cup Final Model Example
• 1982 UEFA Super Cup No Line-up
• 1982 Intercontinental Cup Need to do
• 1994 Football League Cup Final Model Example (No Captain)
• 1996 Football League Cup Final Model Example (No Captain)
• 2000 FA Cup Final Model Example

Avoiding redirects

Sorry for filling up your watchlist. Aaron carass (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC

No, I never realised quite how often you'd failed to win something. Seriously, I think for completeness they should go in, and I don't think their addition would make the section look cluttered or detract from your glorious victories. And your r/u in 92/93 was the Prem rather than the "old" First Division, which'll make it look a bit less like ancient history. ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. Do you consider the Prem as a different league from Div 1; if so, then probably it should go on a separate line. If you consider they're different names for the top level of English football, then leave it how it is, and head it First Division/Premier League. Which is what I did at a lower level with Div 2/Championship. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have you know we won the Second Division before your lot did, though I have to agree you got to the Third twenty-odd years before us... You've got a space after the colon on the winners lines but not on the runners-up. Other than that, it all looks truly glorious (is there a 'finger down throat' emoticon?) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Nevada (BB-36)

First, this is not an attempt at canvassing, and I apologize if it seems like one. Second, would it be possible for you to comment there? Thanks, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class

Did GimmeBot just approve Nevada for A-class on this article's talk page?!?! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it messed up the GA date approved too...it was passed on the 3rd, not the 4th! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and a different bot did this, messing up a reference more than it was before (it was screwed up before because it needed another " mark...) Bots...love them and hate them...=/ ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hi, I was wondering if you could fix a tiny problem with one of the lead paragraphs:

Palin is the [[Geraldine Ferraro|second woman to run for vice president]] on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Piping "Geraldine Ferraro" that way is a bit of a no-no according to WP:PIPE. As a clearer alternative:

Following [[Geraldine Ferraro]], Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Could the sentence please be changed to reflect my suggestion? Thanks in advance. Just64helpin (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Woody, can you please review Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_11#Why_is_Geraldine_Ferraro_in_the_intro_of_Palin.27s_biography.3F and instead of Ferraro revert to the previous sentence and pipe to List of VP candidates? I think you may have unintentionally violated consensus here. Let me know, thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just saw your edit is an hour old - I made the change myself, will be happy to discuss at talk or here if there are probs with it. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, Woody, are you the designated neutral admin to wade in to that minefield? It's such a controversy now that I'm almost afraid to ask an admin to do simple MoS cleanup, that's making me crazy. Should you accept this mission: the "Energy and environment" section breaches WP:ACCESSIBILITY for our readers who use screen readers and WP:MOS#Images. The left-aligned image is right under a section heading, and should be moved down a paragraph, and templated "hatnotes" go before images, not after. Do you 'spose you could move the image down one paragraph without getting desysopped? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You trying to get me desysopped Sandy? I have made the edit now. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I will sleep so much better now, knowing that our most controversial article is MoS compliant :-) Hope it doesn't cost you your job, though; what would you do without your annual bonus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, as long as it conforms to MOS, sod all the other stuff! ;-) I seem to have come away unscathed for the moment, but I am sure someone will object eventually, if only for the fun of it. I am away from the hotbed / cesspit next week though; sailing the high seas, so other admins can deal with it! Regards. Woody (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are everywhere, and don't miss anything. What will I do with you off at sea? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Woody, thanks for your reply and also for the formatting fix. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't sail the high seas, we need you to do a re-review!!

Would you mind reassessing Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, following on from your PR comments, and leaving any thoughts on the talk page? Hope you had a good sailing holiday. Buckshot06(prof) 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

with thanks

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your help improving Military history articles through the Military history review process in June, July and August 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New improved "alerts" template

You may wish to replace your current alerts template with:

{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}

which is more comprehsive, containing A-class, Peer review and featured article information. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the "tlx|" thing is seriously cool. I had no idea it existed. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to do that :) Is the main banner updating properly on your pages? I've flushed my cache and it's still showing the old one, saying that voting hasn't started. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WWII VCs

I've just picked up cheaply a copy of VCs of the Second World War by John Frayn Turner, ISBN 1844150674 which should be useful when you get round to upgrading the WWII list to featured status. David Underdown (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Serial thanks

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		For awesome contributions (including but not limited to mopping up me serial typos), I delight in awarding you this understated barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous VCs

Reading through the original warrant again, there is no specific statement for or against posthumous awards (indeed "Sixthly. It is ordained, with a view to place all persons on a perfectly equal footing in relation to eligibility for the Decoration, that neither rank, nor long service, nor wounds, nor any other circumstance or condition whatsoever, save the merit of conspicuous bravery shall be held to establish a sufficient claim to the honour." could be taken as saying that death in action shouldn't matter). Perhaps we should re-word the statemetns about posthumous awards slgihtly, as it does seem to have been purely a matter of policy, not of bening constrained by the warrant as such. David Underdown (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the tardiness of reply, I am really busy at the moment. Perhaps something along the line of "...the warrant was not clear on the issue of posthumous awards until 1920, although official policy was to not award the VC posthumously. This was partially reversed in 1902 and completely reversed in 1907, whilst the Warrant was officially amended in 1920 to explicitly allow posthumous awards." Sound about right? Woody (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine-of course we really need to do it across all VC articles. David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"need"

Hi Woody, I am thinking of starting a crusade against the use of the word "need" by WP editors when justifying their edits, and I am here to ask your opinions on the matter.
Having raised babies into children, I have had much experience in hearing the word mis-used and over-used by them; it is extremely rare that they actually "need" anything. Recently I have noticed the increasing (mis-)use of "need" in WP edit summaries. (e.g. somebody reverts or changes somebody else's edit and "justifies" it by saying "that is not needed".) To me, this appears like laziness, and shorthand for "I don't like what you did, so I'm going to change it to something that I do like, and to justify my change, I'm going to say 'that is not needed', because it's easier to do that rather than explain what it is that I don't like, and why I don't like it".
What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated post script: That Barnstar of Awesomeness is very impressive. Congratulations! (I'm envious.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is only so much you can say in an edit summary, and need is a very inclusive word. "Need" is all that is required in an edit summary per WP:BRD, you made the edit, I reverted, and if you want, we can discuss it. If you have an issue with one of my edits, please describe them here and I will respond to that specific query. I would rather not beat about the bush. What do you think that several separate sentences look like aesthetically? Woody (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

rather long reply

"spit it out lad!" - Wow! I haven't heard that for a while! It immediately summons up memories of Windsor Davies, complete with big eyes, bushy moustache, and RSM pace-stick under his left arm!! (Happy memories! Thanks for the smile.)
My problem is, (note: my problem, not yours), I thought that was what I was doing!

However, immediately after I hit the "Save page" button, I thought, "Oh dear, I wonder if he'll think I'm 'having a go' at him?". It seems that you did. Sorry, that wasn't my intention.

Addressing second things first: Yes, I made an edit, you reverted some of it and explained why, (whereas many don't - but that's a different conversation ... ), your explanation contained two sentences - I didn't understand the first one, and I agreed with the second one. So I edited to comply with the second one, and said I didn't understand the first. You explained the first. I agreed - no further edit or discussion was required, and I didn't see any point in making a dummy edit so I could say, "I agree". (I suppose I could have made an entry on your talk page saying "I agree", but I didn't think of that.)

You said any opinions to the contrary welcome on talkpage and if you want, we can discuss it. I don't have "any opinions to the contrary" - it's not that I don't want to discuss it, it's just that I don't think there's anything to discuss (regarding the edits). However, you have asked, What do you think that several separate sentences look like aesthetically?, and it annoys me when I ask questions and people ignore them, so in response to your question: Well, I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that I thought (think) that, aesthetically, several separate sentences look better. But, after your clarification I understood what you meant, and I thought, "Well, it was like that before I came along, and obviously he prefers it that way."

"If you have an issue with one of my edits, please describe them here and I will respond to that specific query. I would rather not beat about the bush."
I don't have any issue with any of your edits, except, perhaps, sometimes I don't understand, in which case I believe that I don't "beat about the bush", I ask.

However, I do have an issue-in-general with editors-in-general using the word "need" in edit comments. (Not specifically you, or solely you.) There seems to me to be a growing trend to use "need" rather than explain what is really meant - in my opinion and experience, saying "need" rarely explains anything. I asked you for your opinion because it's my experience that you're pretty sensible and very experienced. It was poor judgement on my part not to pay attention to the fact that you had used the word; it would have been better judgement to ask David Underdown or Roger Davies as I have not seen either of them use the word. But, ho hum, I didn't.

So, if you are inclined, I really would like to hear your thoughts on what I wrote, because use of that word really does irritate me. (But then again, that's my problem, not yours ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the first post as relating to the edit I made very shortly before you posted, seemingly an easy mistake to make. Most of the miscommunication stems from that, otherwise Qui tacet consentire videtur would have applied.

In terms of "need and neccessary/not neccessary" are all part of the same thing, usually I would say something like "see the talkpage" where I would open up a talkpage discussion, but in this case I really didn't think it needed that much discussing. It is only line breaks! The problem is that many articles are reaching almost final stages of development, particularly FAs whereby there really isn't that much that can now be done to them to improve them. They need updating for the times but the structure and text is all there. It is easy for editors to simply say, wasn't needed in FAC, so why needed now? Need is a common word, used to cover up all manner of sins, but it is perfectly legitimate to say it in that small edit summary. It should generally be followed up in a separate discussion, which is what conscientious editors generally do. The edit summary allows only a small text, which is all it should be, editors should not be discussing/arguing in edit summaries. The onus is on you, the editor providing the changes, to explain why they are beneficial, why they are needed, especially when making stylistic changes. Editors have every right to use the word "need" per BRD, and I am sure they will continue to use it. (Though I will think more about the implications of my wording when writing edit summaries) Woody (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good food for thought.
So, would it be fair to summarise your response as: "Well, OK, you probably have a point, but starting a crusade would be a waste of time - 'need' is a perfectly legitimate word for editors to use. If it irriates you, that's unfortunate, but that's your problem, not everyone elses."?
Again, thanks for your time, and sorry to confuse you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

May I ask you to revisit the article List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine and check if the basic structure, grammar, content and layout fulfills "featured list criteria". With respect to grammatical errors, I kindly ask you to fix that for me since I'm not a native speaker and wouldn't know how to do that myself. I did notice that I am missing a few citations on the notes column, which will be fixed before I submit this article formally. Currently I am against removing this column because I do want to convey the message that a substantial percentage of the recipients lost their lives in WW2 without making explicit reference to this fact in the text itself. I am a bit concerned about the last three recipients on the list, the legal situation is a bit controversial and my sources are somewhat inconclusive. I think I made this clear but please pay close attention to this part of the article. Last, the required 80 to 90 percent blue versus red links quotient is not yet reached, but I'm working on this.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is on my list, I will review it when I get a chance. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class review of Nevada

Have I fulfilled your requests? Thanks for the help, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Woody (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin attn needed

Woody, I left a message to Jbmurray as well. Joelr31 is off Wiki for several weeks, Raul is traveling, and Marskell is in a weird time zone, logs on sporadically. Can you keep an eye on this? The FAR is already closed, but GimmeBot hasn't been through yet, and this editor threatens to re-nom immediately if closed (see FAR instructions, three to six months between noms). I can't enter into this if he makes a pointy re-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching all related pages. Kind Regards. Woody (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Woody :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:First Sea Lord

Could you cast your eye over Template talk:First Sea Lord#Use of styles and postnominals please? Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aston villa shirt sponsors/manufacturers table

I dont understand why you keep removing this, it was moved from the main article and put on the Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records article at your request and you have again removed it, other teams (Derby county fc, Leeds United fc) have similar information on their pages so I dont know why you dont feel it adds to the article, also why dont you discuss the removal of the section as opposed to just removing it??Mrengland (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with administrative "tools"

This [3] is the reason I oppose any participation of administrators in article content editing. I spent a better part of an hour editing a section in a list which is otherwise a barren collection of wikilinks, to be reverted because it didn't agree with the other editor's idea of what a list is, without prior discussion, and to top it all off, an administrator, without contacting me, or without any evidence of a request for administrator intervention, or even an established edit dispute (i.e. at least two reverts!) slapped a protection on the article, restricting it to administrator-only editing. This is precisely why Buckshot06 is looking for this sort of "ability", and how Wikipedia's content will ultimately be decided by the more networked administrators rather than any reliance on sources to give it greater authority as a reference work. So much for the "reference work that can be edited by anyone" myth--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history Wikiproject,
October 2008 — March 2009

Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar.-- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of West Ukraine (1944) assessment

Woody, this article is barely Start! Joe is still getting some books for it, and I am still trying to convince others that it was not named as it is now. This operation was in scope every bit as large as Kursk--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Sept newsletter

Thanks for doing the contest dept. I hope things are easier with you and that it didn't encroach too much. Sure I'll do the BSS though I'm not sure how much variety my sig will add. (Thought: doesn't this mean that Bellhalla in line for another A-Class review medal? Or two!?) I was going to hold fire on the newsletter until a replacement is found. Your input at WT:MHCOORD#Coordinator vacancy would be appreciated. Incidentally, if he turns us down, I'm not suggesting we invite the three in tied 11th place instead. I'll explain more thoroughly there. Anyhow, I am very pleased you're back for another term. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Inspired use of magenta for the Awesomeness BS! It defeats the purpose somehow to do it in black :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

On second thoughts (for variety, Bryce has loads of BSS from me), I'll ask Tom to do it, as well as the Bellhalla one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for Buckshot's RfA to close. The newsletter is all ready to go. Have you time to CE it and do the honours? If not, don't worry :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) As you'll have seen en passant, I'm trying to get the Soviet Naming Question definitively resolved. This will probably involve, in the end game, a WP:RM for twenty or so articles. WP:MILMOS should probably also be amended. Just thought I'd mention it as a tantalising foretaste of the delights to come :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that is a powerful disincentive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You would prefer I shut up, and just do as I'm told?

Was the vote already taken on the RM for articles and the amendment to MoS off-Wiki, or is it going to be done in public space to again invoke the "consensus"?

32 articles will need renaming

(bet I'll be banned from here also for this)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You won't be banned, of course not; I don't ban people from my talkpage. I just won't read what you have to say, especially if it is in huge verbose monologues decrying 60 years of world history. As I have said before, unless you start acting under the rules of Wikipedia, you will be more and more marginalised even if your opinion has some semblance of validity. Woody (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because Wikipedia has no rules...except maybe the one about ignoring them all, which is often quoted--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RULES? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of civility and general common decency, a willingness to listen to others. Or, just read Roger's link or Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. By definition, there must be rules to ignore, if there is a policy called ignore all rules. You should only ignore a rule if it is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia; standards of civility do not stop you from improving the encyclopedia. As I have said before, please don't come here with your ideological issues, I will only fix technical/maintenance issues. Woody (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep this in mind.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AVFC stats&records

Hey, there's too many AVFC articles on my watchlist ;-( so I noticed your revert of the Milner thing. I've read the FLC discussion on fees for Milner and Davies, but if you look at the references, the BBC ref you use to cite undisclosed fee actually says £12m, and the Telegraph one says £12m in the headline and first sentence of the article and £10m only in the table below it. Also, Newcastle United more than once say £12m. I'd argue that if one of the clubs involved disclose the fee, then it isn't undisclosed. Davies is a different matter, as neither club disclosed the fee and there's no media agreement on what they think it was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST task forces

I'm not sure if you saw my question to you just above the adoption table, so I'll ask it again here. Would you have any reservations/qualms/misgivings about giving your TF coordinator slot at Maritime warfare up to me since that is my expressed area of interest for MILHIST? I'd understand if you'd like to keep it since I believe that you've also dabbled with a few articles in the spectrum. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and if you get swamped, I'm always here. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First Sea Lords, again

Your input would be welcome at Template talk:First Sea Lord#The options. Thank you! Opera hat (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Hiya Woody. Got an admin-related question for ya: I blocked an account on grounds that the username was inappropriate (took a moment to decipher it, when I final got it I noticed the guy had included bodily waste fluids in his name). I left a hand typed message on the talk page explaining the reason for the block, but was wondering if there was a template somewhere that I could use in such situations. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Olympic poll

You're invited as well, of course. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Arm Wrestling Association

It's back and nominated for speedy again. – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Woody, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, Woody! Thanks for your comments here. I'm kind of busy in real life these days, so I won't be focusing much on improving BTR-90 (or any other article, really) for some time to come. I'll make a note of your suggestions and use them if I get round to it some time later, and if somebody else hadn't already done it by then. BTW, I think it would be best to withdraw the peer review, right? How do I do that, or is it not necessary? Thanks again, and here's a cookie for the suggestions and advice :)

Chamal ^talk _work has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chamal ^talk _work 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks. Chamal ^talk _work 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hello my friend long time no speak! How are you? I guess you could say I'm back I want to get back into the swing of things so to speak the last 6months etc has been a bit tough really just starting back at uni now, so should have sometime on my hands! How's everything going I see you've been busy without me ;)!

All the best Andy.

Yep i'll get to it :) Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

VC Portal?

I sthere any mileage in setting up a VC portal. I know we have the Featured Topic for the variants of the medal itself, but a portal would give more flexibility to cover both the medal and the recipients.

The other random thought which occurred to me, is there any precedent for identifying in the recipient lists which articles hold GA or FA status? Bryce has been doing a lot of work bringing the Aussie recipietns up to higher statuses, and it might be good to acknowledge this a bit more visibly - a portla would also allow this to some extent. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ISI Emerging Markets

My article for ISI Emerging Markets has been rejected, variously because it was too short, too commercial, not enough context....coudl you send it to me please so I can fix it and stop thinkiing about it? The sense of failure is crushing!

Thanks!

Emerginginvestor (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC: New Zealand VCs

Well, i've just excelled myself. I closed your FLC review as promoted. I've undone this now so this is by way of explanation. The excuse reason is that Wikipedia went very slow and soggy on me and the wrong transcluded file opened. I realised when I went to the article. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Davies fee

I noticed that the club records section of the WBA official website has now been updated to show the Curtis Davies transfer, quoting the fee at £8.5m. As this is the official club website, do you think we can take this as the official, disclosed figure? Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also... the Chairman's statement (published this month) talks about an "initial £8.5m" from the sale, implying there were add-on clauses but not saying what they were. --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That all seems sensible to me. If and when the Villa announce their annual figures, it may be mentioned then, so I'll keep an eye out for that just in case. --Jameboy (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Hello, the FLCon is currently running and unfortunately part of the problem with it is that most of our current regular reviewers are entrants. I would hate for people to lose in the contest solely because of a lack of reviewers, so could you please take a look at some of the following FLCs if you have time?

• List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford
• List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard
• List of universities in Nova Scotia
• List of Governors of Arizona
• List of St. Louis Rams head coaches
• List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations
• List of Soul Eater chapters

Thanks for your time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarance Smith Jeffries ACR

Hi Woody, I was wondering if you would be able to comment on the A-Class Review for the article Clarence Smith Jeffries if you have the time? I normally wouldn't go around requesting comments from an editor, but the review has been quite slow thus far and you have provided me with some helpful and insightful comments previously in reviews. Please don't feel obligated to do so if you do not wish to, or do not possess the time. Thanks which ever way, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate; I appreciate it. I have amended the issues raised, and left comments to that effect in the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

William II de la Haya

Hello Woody,

I have now completed the text on my second article, William II de la Haya, (the first being Ranulf de Soulis, with which you helped me) and now am trying to get it to conform to Wikipedia format, with partial success, as you can see in my sand box.

Problems:

• First, I don’t understand why the (Table of) Contents appear before the main title of the article.
• Second, I note that certain sections, Early Life, Hostage for King William the Lion, Grant to Coupar Angus Abbey have not made the transformation from “editing” format to the final, Wikipedia, format.
• Third, Inline references and footnotes. This is what I am working on now and have completed to the end of Early Life.
• (Note that I have included a working list of the notes and references, labeled “For author’s use” at the bottom of the sand box. This is only temporary and I shall delete it when I finally get the article finished.)

Re: Notes.

Balfour, 1906 is OK, This is supposed to be Reg. of Coupar, but is not listed as such. This is what in my pre-Wikipedia days I would have called a foot note. It has not appeared in the list. Townsend, 1970 is really No. 4, but is listed as No.3.

I think that I better stop working on the inline references and footnotes until I hear from you as to what I have done wrong. If we solve the problems on those that I have already done, then I think that I can do the rest. Of course, the next, related step will be the References and, no doubt I can get into trouble there, but that’s in the future. I really appreciate the help that you have given me previously.Thanks. Inver471ness (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

followup to your comments

Thanks, Woody, for being so prompt and helpful.

How did you (a) get the Content to be in the right place and (b) to get those three sections to look right? Just as important, what did I do wrong?

You are right. We should combine the two granting of lands into one section. I intend also to combine Pincerna, Hostage for King William and Ambassador to England into a section called Service to the King.

Re: Inline References.

What I was trying to do was to make 3 explanatory footnotes as you did in Aston Villa FC #3s 8 and 11 and you did for me in Ranulf de Soules #s 5and 7. The three explanatory footnotes are in the temporary section, “For Author’s use” At the moment, the intended footnote, “The evidence for Wm II…charter” is part of the text and one result is that that part of the text does not make sense.

I don’t want to impose on you; I’d rather learn how to do things myself. If you could show me how to handle the first explanatory footnote, I’ll do the other two. My current aim is to get the page correct down to the end of Early Life, and understand how we did it. I'll go on from there.

Two more questions.How did you get the reference to Reg of Coupar to work? I thought that I did it correctly. When I work in my sandbox, I end up with a long history for very minor changes. Can I get rid of this history when I am finished? Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

William de la Haya; second followup to your comments

Hello Woody, Thanks. I'll follow your advice. It's obvious that I should let Wikipedia software do some of the work automatically. Regards,Inver471ness (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor

Hey Woody.

I'm hoping to take 11th Airborne Division to FAC soon for a second try, but I really want to make sure the prose is up to scratch this time. I've looked it over, but I think I'm too close to it. Do you know where I can find a copy-editor who could look it over? EyeSerene is busy with other requests, and the League of Copy-Editors seems to be defunct now. Any help would be appreciated, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't need it yesterday, I'll do it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

VC stuff

You mention that WP is not the place for hero worship. It is rather difficult to mention these guys without seeming as if they are heroes - as they are. The articles are (still) rather bland, to my mind. The Americans are better at promoting their own MOH recipients. Every word of the MOH winner Douglas MacArthur spells out hero, even though he was a high up who was never exposed to too much actual danger. It seems that we have to understate things, as these events happened a long time ago. Modern people are widely acclaimed on Wikipedia for doing far less, for example, David Beckham and Angelina Jolie. The same rules should apply for everyone. Wallie (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More on VCs

re: Please see Talk:Victoria Cross#Recent changes which discusses how we can restructure the VC article. I hope that I have not come across as abrasive in anyway, and I apologise if this is the case. I am only trying to maintain the featured status of the article and maintain its quality, this has been a problem in the past, particularly after its mainpage appearance. If you have any queries or disagreements with my edits, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Woody. Feel free to always talk directly. As you know, I sometimes make as you would say "bold edits". If anyone changes them or the style for the better, that's OK with me. I have noticed that the "British understatement" comes through sometimes. As I mentioned, the Americans tend to treat their people more favourably. The ideal is probably somewhere between the two. Also, the Australians tend to lean more towards the American style - New Zealanders are learning this too. If you see the Chavasse article, it is definitely more understated than Upham. To my mind, these guys are at the same level. Perhaps Chavasse is more "noble" as he saved life and did not just take it. In summing up, I am very flexible, and always looking for new ideas. I do get on my hobby horse sometimes, like in the WW2 article continually bad mouth Germans calling them nazis etc. I had quite a fight there, and eventually won. To my mind with war, there is good and bad on both sides, and things need to be looked at objectively. This happens over time anyway, as the events become more disentangled with the present. Wallie (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

William II de la Haya, ready for moving?

Hello Woody, I think that my article, presently in my sandbox , is now ready, thanks in a large part to your guidance. Do you agree?

I think that I now understand most of the process.

A couple of points.

1. The one part that I had trouble with was putting references in the "explanatory notes". Have I handled it correctly? I have left my original versions of these notes at the bottom of the article so you can see what I was trying to do, but will remove them before I move the article into Wikipedia proper, something I have to figure out how to do.

2. It seems to me that the list of notes is long, but that may be the nature of the beast. Any comments?

3. The history part of my sandbox contains many,many changes, most of which are very minor.To avoid clutter, I would like to remove them. Can I do this?

Thanks for your patient help!

Inver471ness (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

about dt23

Hate to bother you but i was just noticed that a member wikipedia that raised a sourcing question about the page "list of battles by casualties" asked the he be blocked upon his entering into mlilitary service in afghaninstan. now im not sure but isnt that against the rules when someone asks you to block them for semingly no reason and you actually do block. The admin actually did it.shouldnt they have simply asgined a wikibreak. the members name is Dt23 . I thought an admin should check it out.--Sharpterov (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

William de la Haya; third followup to your comments

Hello Woody, I have moved the article to the mainstream.

I found a way to work the first explanatory note into the text proper, so now there are only two explanatory notes.

Thanks for all your help.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The vaguaries of email

I sent you an email - first 2 lines: 1) Hi Woody 2) First, let me ...
I got a "Delivery Status Notification (Failure)"
Did you receive that email? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting a response, but with the "Delivery Status Notification (Failure)" message, I wasn't sure if you had received it. (I spent the weekend under the house checking for white ants. Fortunately, there were none, but I think you had the better experience!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

World War names

Hi, Woody. I'm interested in the provenance and correct usage of names, and I notice that you reverted the names to World War One and World War Two, citing these as Commonwealth forms.[4]

The Canadian Oxford gives First World War and Second World War as the main entries, Great War, World War I, and World War II as alternates, and WW I and WW II as North American abbreviations. In contrast, the New Oxford American (NOAD) gives precedence to the World War I form, and gives unspaced abbreviations WWI and WWII.

I've seen the World War One and Two forms in some publications, as well as the abbreviations WW1 and WW2, but I don't see these versions in the few dictionaries I can check. Do you have a reference? —Michael Z. 2008-11-02 20:37 z

Nothing to apologize for. I am just trying to get a picture of what is the range of “correct” names, to the extent that there is such a thing in English. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-11-02 21:23 z

Thanks

Haha, I always forget how much residue is left around when I close a peer review or something in all of its projects. Thanks for cleaning up after Frederick III, German Emperor. --Banime (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Mughal Empire

The map of the Mughal Empire doesn't seem to show it's right extent. The map shown says that this extent was around 1700, but during this time Aurangzeb was engrossed in the 27 years war against the Marathas. Although Aurangzeb was able to bring down the Bijapur and Golconda Empires, he still was not able to contain the Marathas. He at that time was in the Deccan, but hadn't had any significant gains against the Marathas. In contrast, Marathas were running riot through the Mughal army under Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav. A place can be shown as an extent of an empire if the concerned Empire has total control of the region and has won it, which is not the case here. This map should be replaced by a more appropriate one. Kindly help. ThanksKesangh (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Woody—My feeling is that notifiers will need to clearly specify which tenet of admin behaviour policy has been breached, or their notification will be binned promptly. The tenets will be set out in numbered form for easy reference at the top of the page, taken straight from such locations as Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct and Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse_of_tools_section. I'm keen that a few people act as "coordinators" of the page, moving initial notifications to a discussion section if they believe there's sufficient evidence (admin has right of reply), and then to a watchlist if necessary, where their behaviour would be scrutinised for a certain period. A record would be kept of unacceptable behaviour, where justified. Mediation would be arranged in some cases.

I want the criteria to be strict, to filter out frivolous and unjustified notifications in the fist category (indeed in the other categories too). That way, the procedure may gain a little respect. If WP is incapable (politically) of doing this, it's up to citizens to set up the appropriate apparatus. The only difference is that AdminWatch will have the power only to shame, rather than to discipline and demote.

If you like, it's a way of putting pressure on WP to adopt an official system with teeth. I'm quite open about that.

Please let me know your thoughts. Tony (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Any help would be appreciated here. Libro0 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator discussions

It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:

• WT:MHCOORD#Task force adoption - Proposal for filling the last three TF coordinator slots

• WT:MHCOORD#Coordinating task forces - Job description re task forces. Some input already but much more welcomed so we can get a summary/checklist in place.

• WT:MHCOORD#C-Class: testing the water - Views welcomed on whether in principle Milhist should adopt C-Class.

• WT:MHCOORD#A-class article reassessment - Finishing touches on getting the reappraisal review in place.

Very many thanks :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea the PAGESINCAT template, which I've ripped off here. Unfortunately, it does seem to work on the big one! Could you take a look and see if I've done anything silly please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I'd duplicated a bit of text. Thanks again for a great idea :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have had it on my userpage for a while, thought it would be a good idea to keep track of the cat. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hi mate, I've got an old one for you here. About 3 months ago you assessed a stub article I wrote. I was wondering if you would consider (or condone me) approving one of the MiliHist B-class criterions, specifically the Referencing and Citation. All the points listed in the article have inline citations and all the references are reliable (mostly BBC news). I know it still doesn't meet B5 and B2 could be disputed, I also know it's incredibly petty of me to ask for this one minor detail to be changed, but I just don't like the idea of a potentially controversial article like this appearing in a category titled "Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation". Cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost interview?

Hello, I will be working on an article for an upcoming issue of the signpost that will interview several prolific FL nominators. it is based on one recently done for FAs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for this? You can see the questions I have set up here. If you are interested, please let me know. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just add your answers whenever you are ready, there is no deadline so take your time. You can do them one at a time if you like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Woody, it's firming up. I wonder whether you'd mind having a look at it and providing critical feedback. User:Tony1/AdminWatch Tony (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

re: The Bugle

Thanks for the nudge: I've added a bit and sent it off for despatch. Things as you rightly surmise are a bit hectic :) An unholy trinity of: flu (for the past week), ArbCom electioneering, and a brace of house guests (with another batch coming next weekend). I'll take a look at the Liberty article when I've got a bit more time :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank Barson GAR

I have submitted the article on Frank Barson for Good Article reassessment as I believe that it no longer meets the GA criteria. The discussion page for the reassessment can be found here. Thanks. – PeeJay 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of War in Afghanistan pages..

Hi Woody.. I was wondering if you could offer some advice, or even help me out. As an ex-soldier I am very interested in WP:MILHIST and am a member of the British Task Force. I try and keep a close eye and do some edits over at the Afghanistan pages, as well as pages related to Royal Artillery. Anyway, I left some merge comments on the follwoing pages back in September, and as there has been no comments I wanted to merge 2001 in Afghanistan with Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2001), Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (November 2001) & Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (December 2001) and also some others (see Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)) I believe that this will make these pages a lot clearer. Could you provide me with some advice, as I dont want to just 'Cut n paste' Jez t e C 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what.. I just read MERGE and it seems the way to od this is by following Full content paste merge ... duh Jez t e C 13:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore a page to user space, Church of Life

Hi Woody, could you please restore my entry on the Church of Life, at least to my userspace?. Seems like all my work gets 'erased.' Lucky for write-through file systems and database event logging. Is there something you know that I don't know?

Vmcphail (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)vmcphail

Hi Woody, I recorded the Church of Life entry in 2004 from Victoria University of Wellington anyonymously and may have removed spam from my old user account which I can no longer access.

The Church of Life is, as it states, a counterbalance to traditional religion and the wikipedia entry (interesting concept, a wiki) puts words to a concept that many adults understand. The entry is a point of reference, and I would not be suprised to find that the PROD itself is a conflict of interest.

There are in fact references in the article, to chivalry, to the philosophy of Alexander, and to buddhism.

Thanks.

Vmcphail (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch FAC

Hi Woody. I noticed your name in the Peer Review volunteers page. I'm trying to get Tetrarch (tank) to FA-Class but apparently the prose needs a look at. Are you available to do a copy-edit at this time, or are you busy? I know it's the Christmas holidays and all. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for the info, I'm sure I will need to use it. Funny...you stuck it right into my Navigation Quene! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Mario (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the notice on your user page is outdated Resident Mario (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dangd, you're right, it does automatically squeaze in. I'll reformat it. Regards, Res MarioTalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

Confusingly similar page?

Hi... I was trying to straighten out the sorting of the various admins in CAT:AOTR and ran across this page (which includes the category) ... User:Lindale13/Sandbox/stuff/Sandbox/User116 text ... It appears to be a rather confusingly similar copy of your user page. You may want to speak to this user as I think that AOTR is not the only category where this page is turning up. I wasn't sure if I should just remove the AOTR cat or what. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the editor is doing, User:Lindale13/Sandbox/stuff seems to be a load of copied userpages, most certainly breaching the GFDL. There was an ANI thread but it didn't determine anything, just a bit of hot air. I would just remove the category, or delete the page as a copyvio. The user has not communicated with anyone since the note on their talkpage. I am not quite sure what should be done myself to be honest. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Missed the AN/I thread. I'd have a mind to delete the entire lot of them... if they want them for a legitimate reason, they should be willing to explain what they are up to. At which point I'd glaly help them, but right now, they're messing things up. Plus being a GFDL issue as you say. Thanks for the additional info, best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#User:Lindale13. I agree with what you say, if there was a legitimate reason they should communicate it. If you want any help in deleting them, just ask. :) Regards. Woody (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I used AWB to generate a list of them, saved as a .txt, then edited that .txtt to add all the delete URLs on the front/back of the article names, saved it as HTML and got click happy. I dunno, maybe there's a better way? Someone said that maybe Twinkle could do it faster. But it's done. Thanks for the help and information. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FCDW/WBFLN

Thanks a lot for doing the interview. There are still a couple of questions that you haven't answered, are you going to answer them, or would you prefer not to? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

All done now. Sorry about the delay. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)