User talk:Mzajac/2008

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello,

I just started a page here Oi Khodyt Son Kolo Vikon. I don't know how useful it will be, but I did try transliterating the Ukrainian into English. I could not find a transliteration on the web. You have much more experience with this than I. Would you please take a look and correct it? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:T-84.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:T-84.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 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 fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote Request
Hi Mzajac, I saw your comment in talk saint cyril and wanted to ask if you could vote on the subject of merging the three poor articles into one that can be tidied up, this would also make it easier to contain drive-by edits. Thanks for your reply. Xenovatis (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Cyril#MERGE

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
Happy Easter from the homeland! Hope all is well with you and your close ones and we will see more of your edits at some point. --Irpen 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

SU 85 rollback
Thanks for the help. All of my recent contributions have been merely to correct grammar and ask for sources on some edits I consider questionable, so no problem from my end. I think there is pretty widespread cut-and-paste going on though. Cheers, DMorpheus (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 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) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nestor Makhno
Please self-revert or explain why you changed the lead in talk.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[replied at talk:Nestor Makhno —MZ]

Malyshev Factory
Hi. Why did you remove the milhist box from talk:Malyshev Factory? This was one of the three main tank factories of the USSR, and is the main tank producer for Ukraine, responsible for significant military vehicles (BT tank, T-34, T-54, T-64, T-80UD, T-84). —Michael Z. 2008-05-15 19:37 z 


 * Is it MILHIST ? see the articles for Boeing & Ford both made Aircraft and Armoured Vehicle during WWII, Boeing is still involved in Aircraft Manufacture but they are not classed as MILHIST. While the Factory may produce Military Equipment does that qualify it for MILHIST I do not believe so if you then consider they number of companys world wide who produce equipment for the armed forces the list would be neverending Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, you may want to follow the discussion threads thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IPA font substitution
Hi, reading the archives, I was able to deduce that you seem to be the author primarily responsible for our current IPA font selection ideas. There is currently a discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Common.css that deals with a problem with IPA font selection, and I think we could use some help from you. The primary issues are: --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Inconsistent font selection due to glyph substitution fallback
 * 2) The code is present in both our CSS and our JS
 * 3) IE7 ignores the current CSS (though I think it should catch the JS)

Fair use rationale for Image:Agassiz Brewing logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Agassiz Brewing logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Cyrillic alphabet
I removed the capital Ot ligature from the table - all the other entries are lower-case letters - this one is out of place. See Ot (Cyrillic). If it is not the Ot ligature, then it is a capital omega with one of the diacritics, and it is still out of place in this table. There are no other vowels in the table that are shown in their capital form, with diacritics. See also Omega (Cyrillic). Note: just because something is published in the Unicode standard does not mean it is correct. If the character you restored to the table is incorrectly described in the unicode standard, we are not obligated to perpetuate the error. Please remove the letter from the table, as well as the erroneous footnote that purports to explain it. You don't have any printed examples using this character as a lower-case letter, do you? Cbdorsett (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick and insightful reply. You are right in pointing out that the character is omega with a breathing mark, not the Ot ligature. I don't think you have to worry about other editors beating you to the punch - I suggested removing the character from this table over a year ago (see the talk page). Do you have access to printed resources that discuss the system of accents and the script reforms? The article Omega (Cyrillic) needs a better link to ustav - an article that apparently does not yet exist. The present link goes to Uncial script, which mentions the Slavonic alphabet only in passing (Uncial script#National styles|National styles). Ot (Cyrillic) says that the Ot ligature was used to spell отъ, but this is not the only usage. Psilon pneuma redirects to Spiritus lenis, and refers only to the Greek variants of this particular diacritic, but as the illustration of the "capital ornate Omega" shows, it has a different shape in the early Slavic alphabet (quarter circle opening down). I think we could use an article on poluustav, which I'm guessing is Peter the Great's 1707 innovation, which is referred to in Spiritus lenis. I would be happy to write all this stuff, but if you have references to point to, you would be the better editor for the job. Please let me know if you need any help. Cbdorsett (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Panzer division vs Panzer divisions
Hi Mzajac. I'm sure you had good intentions, but please note that the article Panzer division is a generic reference to the unit type, and not intended to be the article for reference to Panzer divisions, or their unit histories. Panzer division article will seek to explain the origin, development, organisation and doctrine of their use, and will include the units of the Second World War and the Cold War. Please undo your moves and restore the Panzer Divisions article. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Michael, and sorry for not signing. Not much time today, so I didn't figure out properly who did what from history, but copied same message to the two editors. The link on the Panzer division article should be in See also to the List of Pnazer divisions. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't usually have a problem with my sig which I have changed a couple of times--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I took a quick look and it looked like a collaborative effort between the two of you, so thought I should explain to both.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainization
Thanks for your help with Ukrainization! After looking around on there website I still think Russia Today is a joke... just look at this: ... I'm sure there where more then 200 people on Maidan during the celibration of the Orange revolution... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know about RT specifically (but see Russia Today TV), but the Russian press is the 144th most free in the world.  Facts based on only a single citation in the Russian press send up a red flag (no pun)—I would say that any generalization in an article which has to resort to that for backing is dubious by default, even without reading what it says.


 * If you have access to Yekelchyk's book, do look it over. It objectively discusses the way the Krawchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko, and Yanukovych factions have made use of nationality and language (as well as in the Soviet 1920–30s and 1960–80s).  Required reading for understanding where modern Ukraine comes from.  Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 22:23 z 


 * You mean this book: ? I havn't got it but if been thinking about bying a book about Ukraine's history. So any sugestions are welcome! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the one. If you want a full survey from the earliest times, read Magocsi 1996, who gives a bit more coverage of other peoples on the territory of Ukraine, or Subtelny 1988.  Yekelchyk glosses over the early history and goes into detail from the 1800s, but his focus is on what allowed the modern national state to spring up, and he covers post-Soviet and post-Orange events better than the older books.  And easy to read.  Wilson's Unexpected Nation looks good too, but I haven't read it yet. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 22:51 z 


 * Hee, I ordered Serhy Yekelchyk's book today! Maybe others later.... Thanks for the tips anyhowe! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

talk:Old Church Slavonic IPA cleanup
Wow, that was a long time ago. Yes, it looks like the major things I was looking at have been converted to IPA, but there are still a few non-IPA-looking things at Old Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic, and Old Church Slavonic, like the vowels with ogoneks and haceks. I'm by no means a Slavicist, though - I guess those probably represent reconstructed proto-sounds that don't have a definite IPA mapping? In that case they wouldn't need converting. I have no personal attachment to the article so if you're working on it and feel the template isn't needed then feel free to remove it. DopefishJustin (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oop, good eye. naricajǫ is scientific transliteration of Cyrillic, with the ogonek representing nasalized vowels.  The same notation is sometimes used for pronunciation, but then it shouldn't be in brackets like IPA: [ǫ] and [ę].  I'll go through the article in detail and convert these to IPA ([õ] and [ẽ]), before I remove the tag.  Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-31 04:53 z 

Template:Post-Cold War tanks
According to article Sabra (tank) and its external links, Sabra is also a fundamental rebuild (of M60, superior to T-55) with some structural changes. The main guns, fire control systems, power packs, tracks, add-on armour, ERA, engine/transmission, and some of the subsystems were modernized by using new systems. It is also a front-line tank of the Turkish Army. Nothing about life extension. We may not include Sabra if we also exclude TR-85. Flayer (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

General Officer capitalization
You added a comment to the General Officer talk page about whether or not it should be capitalized. As noted, that is already being discussed on a separate talk page. So if you want to join in that discussion, do it on that other talk page. Don't repeat things in multiple talk pages. - Shaheenjim (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did get partway through reading that discussion. It's hard to let stand an isolated comment which are demonstrably factually incorrect, though. —Michael Z. 2008-06-01 15:27 z 

link to a translit service
Hello, in this edit you left the comment "External links: remove link to a translit service (which doesn't uses a proprietary transliteration system)". What did you actually wanted to say with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haykush (talk • contribs)


 * Oops, that doesn't sound right, does it? I removed the link for several reasons:


 * It's not encyclopedic. It is a tool rather than a reference.
 * It's one of many transliteration programs (online, Mac, Windows, etc), including free ones. This ad-driven service probably wouldn't be the first choice if we were to link to one.
 * The choices of only "universal", Gost, and ISO 9 transliterations for Russian isn't very useful (I hadn't seen the pop-up, so I thought it only use the proprietary "universal"). There is only one Ukrainian transliteration, not corresponding to any common scheme (щ = shh, ь = ").
 * The transliterator has some good features, but it is odd and feels inconvenient to me. It captures all keystrokes, including command keys, text navigation, etc.

I notice your edits are mainly adding such links. Do you have any personal or professional connection with translit.cc?

GA Review
I don't know requests are received, but I will ask anyways. It seems that not many people are interested in reviewign the article Verdeja, due to a lack of knowledge on the tank itself and on tanks, in general. The issue with the former is that not many people are bound to know about the Verdeja, especially in such detail (the main source I used is a rare book, at that - it cost me around €40, which is a good price for it!), and so if that is a main consideration I'm afraid that it will never be reviewed! As one of the most knowledgeable members on armored fighting vehicles, that I have come across, I wanted to ask if you were interested in giving it a good article review? If you're not interested, that's fine. Thank you for your time, JonCatalan (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the Verdeja either, but I will try to read over the the article in the next few days. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-06-01 16:18 z 


 * Thank you for considering it! However, some hours after I sent you this message, another editor reviewed it. It always happens to me that when I ask someone to review it, somebody else chooses to do  it. :/  I'm not complaining!  In any case, thank you for considering it. JonCatalan (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian alphabet
Sorry about that - thanks for fixing it. Have you seen other such problems with AWB? Wondering if it's a bug or if perhaps I have a sub-optimal setting somewhere. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rarely. This was a case of unusual markup.  I left a note on the AWB bugs page, and it's already been fixed in revision 3014.  Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-06-30 15:14 z 

Re:Please clean up after your page moves
I don't know what from that revision history can I possibly add there. All those changes there were related to the BMD-1. All I did was take the small bits of information from here and there and put them together to create the BMD-2 article.

All double redirects are gone.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2S9 double redirect has been removed and the BTR-D related ones will be soon deleted as well since I'm currently making BTR-D article because there's enough information to create a separate article. Now I will mention from which page some of the information was taken but there's no way for me to that now in the BMD-2 article.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:34, 2 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) 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank Task Force
Hey,

I wrote my reasoning for the founding of a task force for tanks on the Military History WikiProject, which you can read here. I guess its success is dependant on membership, and given that you're the major editor for the T-34 article I wanted to express an invitation. The task force wouldn't require editors that do 'heavy edits' - as in, entire articles - and, in fact, I would be looking more for active copy editors that do minor edits to maintain the quality of the article - but, really anything is fine. What I'm looking for is more or less detailed in that message I left on the WikiProject talk page (previously linked above). If you're interested it would be great if you could mention it there, and if not that's fine - but, it's worth a try. ;) Regardless, thanks for your time and patience! JonCatalán (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stub12718696
Hi. This guy has been editing some pages that you may have an interest in yourself. I have been reverting lots of his testing, which I'm pretty sure is in good faith. Could you go through his contribution history and check everything he's done? I don't have enough knowledge of the subject matter to tell what's good, bad and ugly. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Omega (Cyrillic)
A tag has been placed on Talk:Omega (Cyrillic), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It has been completed.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. StubExpander (Stubby-Tag) 23:33, 25 July 2008

MfD nomination of Portal:Soviet Union
Portal:Soviet Union, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soviet Union and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Soviet Union during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Faux Cyrillic
I have nominated Faux Cyrillic, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Faux Cyrillic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:15, 31 July 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) 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I A-Class Review
Hey,

Since you're a member of the Military land vehicles task force I just wanted to let you know that the Panzer I article is currently going through an A-class review. Your comments and support would be much appreciated, and would help the task force continue on its way to increasing the quality under its scope. Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ISO/R 9 - 1968
Hi Mzajac, on 20 February 2006, you added the ISO/R 9 - 1968 rules to the ISO 9 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_9&diff=40357817&oldid=39978456 I got a hard copy of this ISO recommendation (2nd edition, September 1968) from the library and noticed some differences. My copy does not mention Old Church Slavonic, Church Slavonic, and Rusyn, but your table does. Where do these differences come from? --MaEr (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pope
Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for the "Lead section" in the article "List of main battle tanks by country"
Hi Michael, I've just revisited your proposal (Talk:List of main battle tanks by country) and found that nobody else made a comment about it. So as per my last response, please proceed with the proposed change. Thanks & Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank for the reminder. Done. —Michael Z. 2008-08-20 18:25 z 

Your proposal for merging "List of prototype armoured fighting vehicles" into "List of main battle tanks by country"
Hi Michael, I've noticed that this merge proposal is still outstanding, even though no opposition was raised (see: Talk:List of armoured fighting vehicles by country). Can you pelase revisit what has been stated there, and if happy with that then please proceed with your proposal? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll proceed with this when I have a bit of time. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-08-20 18:26 z 


 * I assume that the vehicles with protoype in the description are those that were originally listed in the merged article. Well done! Thanks & Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yessir. I'm also eying some of the other AFV lists for merging or reorganizing, starting with armoured cars.  Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-27 05:52 z 

T-80
It appears to me that the issues you've spotted in the T-80 article are the same ones cropping up in the BMP-1, T-55, ZSU-57-2, SU-85 and SU-122 articles. There is a pattern here of copyright violation, self-published and dubious sources, and really poor english writing. I reported the copyvios last week since this is the most serious issue. Sadly I don't read some of the languages being cited in the sources, but I worry that those too are being essentially cut-and-pasted. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When I asked for translations, Supertank flatly stated that he inserted translations into the article text, at talk:T-80. I don't know what can be done about it, but I hope to replace such references with better ones.


 * The biggest problem is with dubious statements. Of course they can't be replaced with better-sourced ones, so it comes down to a revert-war, unless I can get some other editors interested in participating.  I hate to ask, though. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 17:29 z 

Re: Don't make articles worse
I'm currently working on implementing your "verifiable information" into an infobox that has more of it so chill out, ok?

Also I don't know how you not caring if I feel hurt helps your case. What's more I suspect a third party might think of you very lowly because of that. But than again that's your problem.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All I want is the truth. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How does adding a link to “Gary's Guide” next to a citation of Baryatinsky's book get you truth. It just condemns the article to remain plastered with content tags and permanently start-class.  Stop it. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 18:24 z 


 * I asked it once and I will ask it again: What's the problem with the fact that my source agrees with yours? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Self-published and foreign-language sources are not preferred (WP:SPS, WP:NONENG). Using them will keep the article tagged as having content problems and prevent it from being rated above START-class in quality.  Don't you care about these problems? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 18:57 z 


 * Your lack of logic makes me check if this is some sort of nightmare or not. If the "verifiable" source says something and than a "non-verifiable" source says the same thing that means that the second source isn't so bad after all. That is what you fear. A fact that some of those "non-verifiable" sources (the way you see them anyway) can be to some degree "verifiable". Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If Gary's site for gamers has one correct fact then all of its facts must be correct, so to hell Wikipedia's policies, is that it? Sweet, sweet, logic!


 * You don't care about the policy which says that self-published sources “are largely not acceptable”, nor do you care about raising article quality. You just want to treat this encyclopedia like your own personal site and add all the crap you possibly can to it. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 19:27 z 


 * You got my intentions all wrong. First of all I didn't say that automatically everything became true but the facts that are not addressed by "verifiable" sources have high possibility of being true. Also I don't treat this place like my personal website but I have problems with people like you who go "crusades" in order to "clean Wikipedia of wrong statements" destroying other people's work and removing (sourced) information that in most cases is true. You have to look very deep into Wikipedia to find truly wrong statements. What's more as I have said you lack logic as do some parts of Wikipedia policy. We are human beings and not machines. If we are to blindly follow the policies it would a lot better to just create a program to manage Wikipedia and save everybody's time.


 * Also here are the references the Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide is using (can be found at the bottom):
 * "FM 3-23.30 Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals. FM 3-22.34 TOW Weapon System. FM 17-98 Scout Platoon. FM 23-34 TOW Weapon Systems. OPFOR Worldwide Equipment Guide. USAARMC Threat Branch T-80U poster."


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gary's is still a self-published source, which Wikipedia recommends against citing. T-80 can't rise in quality assessment if sources like this stay.  Do you intend to keep reintroducing them, or would you rather see them replaced with verifiable published sources, so that the assessment can improve? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 19:44 z 


 * As I said logically there is nothing wrong with keeping it where it agrees with a "verifiable" source and where it points out logically correct details not addressed in any way, shape or form by a "verifiable" source.


 * BTW I want you to prove to me that the source you recently added to the article, "Main Battle Tank T-80" book, is reliable because I see no reason for it to be any better than all the other available sources.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, logically, you intend to prevent the article from improving to A-class in its assessment (as that would absolutely require the removal of self-published sources)? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 20:04 z 


 * Look at my response in Talk:T-80 for my reason of making exeptions in Wikipedia policies. Also I once again demand you to tell me why your source is "verifiable" and why can it be trusted without question? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying we make an exception to the ban on self-published sources, and then we are forced to keep the article assessment low? Or are you saying we also make an exception to the A-class criteria and call the article A-class?


 * And how do “we” make these exceptions without consensus, since I am against them? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 20:19 z 


 * What you do is prevent yourself from thinking straight about this situation. If you would for a minute take into consideration that Wikipedia policies aren't absolute and thought about those issues we're having logically and with an open mind, I'm sure you would see what's wrong with blindly following Wikipedia policies. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Won't answer that one? I guess you're not interested in the article assessments. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 21:19 z 


 * I'm interested in not allowing people like you who follow Wikipedia policies without question or thought and delete information which logically makes sense just because the sources don't apply to Wikipedia policies. Exceptions happen don't forget that. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're okay with the article staying at START or maybe B-class forever, because the self-published sources must remain? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 21:35 z 

The issue is that you can't verify the information you claim is true. So there's no way nobody really knows if it's true - even if you think it is. JonCatalán (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Roman Emperor
Template:Roman Emperor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Navbox under infobox
I should mention that bunching templates like that will move the edit links from the headers, and so you normally have to insert this coding. I had to do it to all the post Cold War tank template tanks. I'll do it to the Spanish tanks, as well. This is just a heads up for future use. Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons
Hi. The consensus so far has been not to decorate AFV infoboxes with flag icons, as per WP:FLAGCRUFT. I notice you cite WP:WEAPON in your edit summaries, but I see nothing there but some examples without flags. —Michael Z. 2008-09-01 03:44 z 


 * Good day Michael, your manual of style DOES recommand the use of a flag for the AFV infoboxes : "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results, and cannot be expressed better with text. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once."


 * In the case of the AFV infoboxes, the flag gives the reader a quick reference about the nationality (i.e. Soviet vs Russian, US vs Canadian, ect). Thanks, and have a great day! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[responded at user talk:TheGerm —MZ]


 * Pls see Template talk:Infobox Weapon for the answer.

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 1 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) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Hi,

I see you've been around a while so I hope I don't come across as preaching. I've noted the comments you've made on User:DagosNavy's Talk Page. For info, it is perfectly acceptable to remove any comment from your own talk page. The action of doing so, in fact acknowledges that they've been read. A further note is that assuming someone is uploading images to subvert policy is not showing good faith, uploads are usually done in good faith out of ignorance rather than malice. User:DagosNavy is an enthusiastic and productive editor, my guess is his enthusiasm got a little misplaced. Justin talk 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speaking up. I overreacted a bit, and explained why at DN's talk page.  Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 23:34 z 

Uploading of Images and use of the user talk pages

 * Hi there. Regarding your post at my talk page=


 * The first paragraph is already under discussion on the proper page.
 * If I removed such notices it was not in order to hide anything, my intention was just to clean up my talk page; I know that I cannot erased them from Wikipedia, and I never intended to do so.
 * I only use the "tactics" (as you said) allowed by Wikipedia. We are, after all, editors, and not lawyers. I acknowledge that I made many mistakes uploading images, mostly during my first year as a registered user. But I never intended to vandalize or disrupt the encyclopedia, just to add useful images to articles. By the way, I read somewhere that the deletion of pics uploaded in good faith by an user is not enough reason for blocking him.--Darius (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)




 * It's all fine, Michael. My intention respect to LastLion-w.jpg was only to enrich the article by including a rare picture of an Iraqi T-72 defending Baghdad in 2003.


 * Regarding the other images:


 * May be I am wrong, but at the time that I uploaded the photo to Commons, the Iraq PD template didn't established the January 1991 deadline for a pic to be considered "free". I though then that only post-2004 images were copyrighted.


 * Respect to EOCM, I replaced the "Non-free historic image", which was the reason of your concern for "Non-free fair use in|Lion of Babylon tank"; I also made clear at the "repleaceability" entry that even if the vehicle is in public display, this tank is certainly the only one remaining that features all the characteristics of the T-72 Lion of Babylon (armor glacis plate, countermeasures pod). However, I left a nota bene at the foot of the page explaining that an acquitance of mine, who lives in San Antonio, Texas, may obtain a free picture for me at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, it could take months, but I promise to upload it to Commons with the proper licensing as soon as I receive the material. And, of course, I will take the copyright templates more seriously. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The rationale is faulty. Image:EOCM.jpg is clearly replaceable, and doesn't fall under the fair-use guideline.  Please don't remove the tag again. —Michael Z. 2008-09-11 17:41 z 


 * Regarding Image:LastLion2003.jpg, the template has changed, but the image didn't meet the criteria. At that time, template:PD-Iraq required that “at least five years have elapsed since the end of the year of its publication”. You gave the date of the photo as April 4, 2003 when you uploaded it on October 12, 2007—it wouldn't have been eligible for fair use until at least January 1, 2009. —Michael Z. 2008-09-11 17:58 z 


 * It's OK, Michael. I thought that the new tag was enough. No problem with the EOCM image. As I told you, a free version is incoming, so you're right about the replaceability.
 * As for LastLion-2003, things would have been much more clear to me with the current template when I uploaded the pic. Thank you and best regards.--Darius (talk) 22:57, 11 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) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Red flag over Berlin
Hello Mzajac, I have a question regarding the image Image:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof unaltered.jpg. Judging by your comments, you know something about that image. It has been removed from the main WWII article for copyright reasons, however, it is present at many WP pages. Do you have any idea about its status and limitations of its use? Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Che
Hi, thank you for your input. There's some issue with wording in your last edit for Ч. --Atitarev (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Khrushchev
Unless there is a more popular transliteration, a modified BGN/PCGN is used for the title and the subject's name throughout the article, according to Wikipedia policy. I only used ISO 9 for the exact transliteration in the intro, as used in the articles of Chinese people, i.e. Hu Jintao. This isn't controversial, as far as I'm concerned. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you add a BNG/PCGN transliteration after the person's name, as BNG/PCGN is typically very similar to the transliteration used in the article; it doesn't add much. The point of providing another transliteration, is to provide a faithful, unambiguous, unbiased (not created to satisfy a particular language, such as English) transcription of the name in the Latin alphabet, in a system that is internationally approved; BNG/PCGN is not an international standard. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because ISO 9 is for Cyrillic script, not Chinese :-). And Pinyin IS an international standard. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VCFilipKonowal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VCFilipKonowal.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:22, 26 September 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) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet on Wikimedia Commons
Hi Mzajac,

some images of the Cyrillic_alphabet on Wikimedia Commons which you uploaded in 2004 are broken. At first glance this seems to be a data base problem. The letters are used in the German Wikipedia. Do you have any idea, what's wrong?

Best regards, --Ukko (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes it does look like some kind of database problem. I'm a bit shocked that images can just disappear permanently—I wonder what else was lost...


 * I still have my originals, so I'll upload replacements in the next day or two. Thanks for pointing this out. —Michael Z. 2008-10-24 15:43 z 


 * Great, thank you! --Ukko (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for your information: --Ukko (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the list of missing images linked doesn't include any of the Cyrillic letters. So either the scope of the problem is larger than identified, or that was not the only mistake which led to data loss.  I'm not happy. —Michael Z. 2008-10-24 21:41 z 

Flechette vs. Fléchette
I've seen the moves back and forth from Flechette to Fléchette, and I'm gonna have to agree with fléchette here; a check of dictionary.com shows all listed dictionary entries as using the fléchette spelling. scot (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[responded at talk:Flechette —MZ]

In regards to incorrect revert on Patton tank page
Hey Mzajac! Apologies for my recent revert on your edits on the Patton tank article. It was a mistake that happened during (too) quick reverts of vandalisms performed by 66.193.220.225. The target IP had modified that article suspiciously before you, which was the edit I actually intended to revert; but I notice now that you fixed it yourself. Thank you for reverting my edits back and sorry again! :-) --dionyziz (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

RE:World war naming
Apologies, I thought I had reverted them (or written originally) First World War/Second World War. I will amend them accordingly now. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, for British articles and related articles MILHIST recommends First/Second; for American English it is World War One or I. That is what I recommend when doing Peer reviews as I thought that to be correct(?) Please feel free to prove me wrong! ;) Woody (talk) 22:23, 2 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) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Accidental comment split
Sorry for splitting your comment. The differing content of the lines, the starting manner of the second line, and the fact that, over the small sample size, they appeared to be different in grammar, led me to believe that the first line was actually an unsigned comment by someone else. Of course, I should have checked on the history page. LinaMishima (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to worry. Sometimes it happens by mistake, and some editors treat discussion like quoted emails, so I try not to take offence.  Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-11-23 20:21 z 

The Zhe frog
Linky

The first paragraph (kids, frogs and toads) doesn't show any consensus besides of the original author, the second one (What's with the frog picture?), shows clear consensus on deleting the image (note that the comment by Guugolpl0x is a joke, it shows an animated gif with the frog and the scream). --FixmanPraise me 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

world war
I try to avoid British and etc articles. Do you have any specifics I can fix. Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerned, but polite writing. If there are mistakes I made, and you can show them to me, I will certainly fix them. I do read all the edits that AWB is helping me make, but mistakes are made by all editors, whether doing things manually or with auto help. Thanks again. Hmains (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mzajac, ive also added further information to the ANI page to help resolve this, in honesty, a lot of undo edits might need doing on the British subject articles, yet to determine between what is British and what should be American pages doesnt really come under WP:ENGVAR. Any help would be appreciated thanks.CorrectlyContentious (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kharkivov
Wow, thanks very much. I'm sure the question will come up again... —Michael Z. 2008-11-30 21:17 z 

Thank You
Thank you for the fix on Pysanka Bobanni (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Always glad to help foil a vandal. —Michael Z. 2008-12-04 01:48 z 

Native Canadian article vandalism
Thank you for spotting those "sneaky" bits of longer term vandalism that had crept into several Native Canadian related articles, it's always appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:31, 4 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) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update
I made a second kishka article. I was tired of the argument. I posted about the two articles a bunch of places, but my computer crashed when I was posting it on the kishka (food) talk page. The other article is kishka (Jewish food). I don't agree with the two articles, but I don't think it's worth one bad article and an endless edit war. Some day perhaps a merger can unite the two articles and the love of sausages can be shared throughout the land. Anyway, I got distracted and forgot to put the notice back up there, but will do so now. Thanks for the great explanation and research on the linguistics. I think it's interesting that the Polish immigrants in the Midwest seem to have been rather neglected by many of the sources. The regional source seems to be the best one. I guess what dictionaries and encyclopedias cover depends a lot on who writes them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's some pretty cool information on the talk page of the Kishka (Jewish food) article if you're interested. Some good background on the term and some yiddish humor thrown in for good measure. Oy vey. Intothewoods was nice enough to give me a barnstar for my "awesome edit summary" here . So it was nice to know I at least made someone laugh! I don't think there was any winning the argument no matter what sources and evidence were produced so I tried to keep it light. Usually I get in trouble for that too, but as least I stay sane. My involvement was a result of your civil request for a 3rd opinion, so good on you for keeping a cool head and asking for help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I guess you already saw it. I agree that Kishke would be a better spelling. But I didn't want to be suspected of foul play, so I leave it to others to adjust the title as they fit.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Y.-F.Felequenco
You have removed several times the entry for Y.-F.Felequenco in the List of Canadian Ukrainians.

If you have reason(s) why Felequenco should not be listed there, please argue them in the Discussion section of the List. Your anti-Western, anti-Ukrainian, anti-Semitic and pro-Russian vandalism of the List of Canadian Ukrainians will not be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.68.47 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

British Standard romanization
Not off the top of my head, no. I'll see if I can find anything, though. Please let me know if you find anything first. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, December 29, 2008 (UTC)