User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 10



Talk:Pilsen
Hello Parsecboy. You have just closed the requested move at Talk:Pilsen as "no consensus". With 10 users supporting a move, 4 opposing, 1 neutral, and 2 asking for the article to be moved (although without the diacritic "ň" that is standard usage on Wikipedia), I cannot agree that this is a "no consensus". Besides, as an admin you should have in regard the arguments used in the discussion, and some of the opposes are plain absurd: Please review this discussion, with particular attention to the arguments provided (and the arguments rebutted). Thank you. Hús ö  nd  15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrewa- "No new evidence. English usage is changing on such names, but Wikipedia policy is to follow the change not lead it" (plenty of material presented at the bottom to show that Wikipedia would be following the change and not lead it).
 * 70.55.85.143- "use Plzen or Pilsen, unless you have a non-English keyboard, it's not ň, and if you do have a non-English keyboard, then it's not English" (duh, wrong. All other Czech towns on Wikipedia are accurately written with the diacritics. We have cheap redirects for people whose keyboards lack "ň").
 * Rumping- "Plzeň is not English" (again, plenty of evidence at the bottom that it is common English).


 * Hello, Húsönd. I've been keeping an eye on this proposed move since it moved into the backlog section at WP:RM, several days ago. I felt that the evidence for English usage of Plzeň wasn't very strong (i.e., few direct links showing English usage of the native name, this being the only one). In fact, the only hard evidence I saw presented (aside from the link noted above, and Google searches, which I don't put much stock into), were the links Matthead provided, to the city's website, which uses Pilsen in their English language version. I would suggest that if you want to start another proposal, it would be best to provide more direct evidence, at the beginning of the propsal (an example is how Erudy organized a large amount of evidence at the Djokovic move some time ago).


 * Also, I counted 5 opposes, but that's not that important. In my opinion, consensus needs to be better than 10 for the move, 5 against, 2 for a 3rd option, and 1 neutral, especially for more controversial moves like this. No, not everyone will always be happy, especially those whose positions are motivated by pro/anti-German/Czech/whatever-bias reasons. In the end, the evidence supporting or opposing controversial proposals like this needs to be more or less insurmountable, such that the people who oppose/support/whatever based on ideological grounds won't have a tenable platform on which to stand. I hope that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, fair enough. I can't say I'm happy with the result, but at least your closure is not outrageous or inadequate. I will most definitely reignite this discussion about Plzeň in the future. I am mostly upset for the fact that the previous move request (2 years before this one) resulted in a similar outcome but nevertheless the article was moved to "Pilsen" (by a user who had participated in the discussion and had called for the article to be moved!). I was really hoping that such unfair, gross violation of process could be fixed now. :-/ Regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't looked at that old proposal, but it seems clear to me that at least in UK and American media, Plzen is the preferred name. If you could find examples of usage in the US State Dept. and UK Foreign Office (not to focus solely on the US and UK, but Canada, Australia, and the other primarily English-speaking countries tend to follow one or the other), I'm sure that would be more convincing. I agree that the old discussion was improperly closed; the admin who participated in the discussion really should have let a neutral admin close it. It does seem that English usage is moving more and more towards Plzeň, or at least towards Plzen at the moment, and the article will eventually end up there as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you based your decision on evidence of usage just as WP:NAME asks, but it appears that an important selection of this was missed. In my support, I mentioned the evidence from the previous discussion - I implictly meant by this these two edits  .  Here we have evidence that all the major online encyclopaedias use the indigenous name in English, and a wide variety of media outlets.  I admit the first of this didn't use direct links and was buried in the first discussion but it is correct (Encarta, Columbia Britannica American Heritage Dictionary, no entry for Pilsen Merriam-Webster).  This weight of evidence for reference works and media is much larger than the couple of links using Pilsen that you noted; the weight of evidence combined with the weight of opinion supporting I think is pretty overwhelming.   I wish I had explicitly repeated the previous evidence as it would have made the situation clearer.  Given the fuller picture, do you still feel that your decision reflects the consensus and the usage evidence? Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reopened the move discussion, as the evidence you've provided makes the case for Plzen/Plzeň much stronger. In my opinion, the page should be moved from Pilsen to one of the two, but it's not clear to me which version is favored more widely. That will likely take more research and discussion to determine. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for your time in considering all that. Whichever title is picked of Plzeň and Plzen, it will better mirror the usage in other English-language reference works and media outlets, and that's what's best for the article and its readers ultimately.  Thanks again, best wishes Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I applaud this decision of yours, Parsecboy; it is not often that admins will go back on their decisions to allow a second thought. As for your doubts on whether should "Plzen" or "Plzeň" prevail, I should note that by tradition (based on the first pillar of Wikipedia), we almost always use diacritics on foreign words when those words have no different, specific English variants (e.g. we use "Munich" but not "München", which is strictly German), and usage of those words with the diacritics is verifiable on English sources. Which is clearly the case here, as is the case for all other Czech towns bearing diacritics on their names. Diacritics in the Latin alphabet are not only perfectly accepted in English, as they also add accuracy and allow correct reading of the foreign words they complement (not "adorn" as some users evoke, apparently believing that diacritics have a decorative purpose only). I ask you to please compare this situation with hundreds of other examples which bear the exact same characteristics as Plzeň's here. Namely, the Czech city of České Budějovice, once called "Budweis", where the world renowned beer "Budweiser" originated (much like the "Pilsener" from "Pilsen"). Additionally, I ask you to please revisit the move request two years ago, and with due regard use all of your fair discernment should you wish to close this requested move again. Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  00:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, objective editors (admin or not) should never have a problem examining a decision they've made and, finding it to be in error, reversing it. You do have a point about using diacritics, but I also think following English usage is important as well. As Erudy pointed out on the talk page, it seems to be split fairly evenly between journalists using Plzen, while other encyclopedias and other reference works use Plzeň. I think at this point, it might be best to wait a day or two so other editors can comment on the issue; if a full-fledged discussion starts on Plzen/ň, I'll most likely take part in it, so I'll hold off on closing it just yet. Parsecboy (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm glad that, at least, this is not over yet. :-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Woodstock
Just a heads-up: you made this move: 00:13, 13 September 2008 Parsecboy (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Woodstock" ‎ (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6)) (restore) which I've just undone. The speedy tag was placed there by another editor inappropriately. The requested move was for the disambiguation page (formerly) at Woodstock to be moved to Woodstock (disambiguation) and for the base name "Woodstock" to become a redirect to Woodstock Festival. No request was made to move Woodstock Festival to Woodstock, just for the redirect. I think such a move might be uncontroversial, but some steps appear to have been skipped. If the move is done, I'd like to see the discussion at Talk:Woodstock kept in any event. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I had assumed all the ducks were in a row. I suppose I should've checked the move request a little more closely, eh? Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

help please -- Second Sino-Japanese War
Dear Parsecboy -- first, thanks -- perhaps for your patience - I'm new to this. Regarding the Second Sino-Japanese War:

1. I cannot figure out technically how to add a comment to the section on combatants, as you suggest. I would like to make a case for the change of the flag for Peng Dehuai, supported in part by Wiki's own practice elsewhere.

2. Someone suggested reading an article from Time, 1941, as a primer for newbies on this topic. Henry Luce's overt bias toward Chiang and his wife are well documented, in Wiki and elsewhere. The article has no place in an objective discussion of the history of the era. Tuchman's 'Stilwell and the American Experience in China,' in contrast, is a highly regarded source, though long, and among many other great things indicates why we should ignore Time on China during that era. I also cannot figure out how to add this comment to the relevant section.

Regards, Richard Coeur de Singe (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Richard. You might have me confused with someone else; I don't think I've talked with you before this. However, I'll do my best to help you out. It was User:DCTT who undid your change to Peng's flag icon (you can see the diff here). You may want to ask him to explain his position more thoroughly. I personally think the flag of the Chinese Communist Party would be more accurate for him, as he was a major leader of the CCP. As an aside, I'm not sure why we don't have Mao in the infobox.
 * As for the comment to the section on combatants, I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. Are you asking how to make a footnote in the infobox, like there is for the notes on the Flying Tigers and the Chinese puppet states?
 * As for the usefulness of the Time article (I have not read it myself), it might be a good idea to post your thoughts on the article at the Reliable sources noticeboard for some comments from the sourcing experts. Having not read it myself, I would want to refrain from passing any judgment (not that I'm some sort of arbitrary authority or anything, I'm just another editor) as to the usability of the source. I hope that helped answer your questions. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Parsecboy -- thanks -- is using the 'edit' feature the correct way to respond? i find the Wiki user interface rather counter=intuitive.

1. I wrote to you because i thought you were the one who had changed the flag back, and i didn't want to continue a skirmish (sic) of tit-for-tat edits (and in reading your other posts, i sense that you have a perspective on matters that i align with, particularly your comment about nationalism, which is strongly at play in the SSJW article). As an editor, perhaps you can tell me who does arbitrate such matters. To be precise, the CCP flag is less accurate than the Red Army flag, but that discussion is a matter to submit for consideration once i know clearly how to do so.

2. Regarding combatants and comments, i'm not clear how to enter comments into the talk page. Do i merely click on 'edit' and then type, as i'm doing here? My question is about the correct procedure, technically (at the keyboard) to use to enter my comments into the talk page.

3. I will check out the 'reliability of sources' location you mention. I would also like to know if i may comment on the Time magazine article where it's mentioned, on the talk page, directly. I'm saddened to think that anyone would read that nationalistic tripe as historically relevant.

I'm a seven-year resident of Shanghai, 17 total in East Asia. One of my better friends here is a Buckeye; good luck with your studies and your recovery.

Regards, Richard Coeur de Singe (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there is a section on a talk page or an article you wish to edit, you can just click on the "Edit" button for that section. If you want to create a new section on a talk page, there's a tab on the top of the screen that will either display as a plus sign (+) or as "Start a new section", between "Edit this page" and "History"; if you click on it, it will open the edit screen, along with a box above it for you to place the section title.


 * I'm glad to see that you wanted to avoid edit-warring; far too many editors are all too happy to continually revert each other until they get their way (or are blocked for being disruptive, of course).


 * You are correct about the nationalism problems with the SSJW article, although you should have seen it a year or two ago (actually, you can see old versions, like this one from Dec. 2007). Generally, editors discuss things to form a consensus, and that solves most problems. However, when the involved editors are too polarized to form an agreement, it is useful to post a request for comment from outside editors. If that doesn't work, then there can be a request for mediation, where a member of the Mediation Committee will attempt to resolve the issue. Failing that, it can go to the Arbitration Committee, for a final judgment. That's more or less the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia.


 * Of course you can comment on the validity of the Time article on the talk page. Just open a new section like I explained above, and provide your thoughts. Others may agree with you, and the source would be removed from the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * slowly getting the hang of it -- thanks for clear feedback above --


 * i don't care for ad hominem argument as a rule, but i think it's worth noting that DCTT, on his info page, proudly states that his grandfather was a "colonel in the Chinese air force" (read: KMT officer)


 * regards,Richard Coeur de Singe (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * add - i'm also interested to understand your own role -- it seems that you're something more than just another editor -- thanks again -- Richard Coeur de Singe (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I've been able to help you so far. My apologies for taking a while to reply, but we've had some bad storms here in Columbus, and most peoples' power has been off since Sunday night.


 * I am an administrator, which really is just a regular editor who has extra tools. It doesn't give my opinion on matters any more weight, or give me any extra authority over other editors (other than that I have the ability to block users, if their actions fall under the scope of the blocking policy, of course). However, many users do view admins to be "higher ranking" than normal editors, which is why I don't tout "the mop" (as it's referred to) like some sort of status symbol. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 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) 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * who do you recommend--Divbis0 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FA review for Battle of Incheon
Battle of Incheon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

(I am informing you of this FAR because of your high number of edits to the Korean War.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to: Notability of Lira Luis
I can give you numerous references to the notability of architect Lira Luis. I created this article as a fan of architecture. I used this username as the name of the article because it is the most logical and easiest name to remember. If you do a search on "Lira Luis" from the Yahoo! search engine, you will see a lot of articles written about Ms Luis. I think the original article I wrote about her was unfairly reported and deleted. It appears as a blatant sabotage against a person by a group who appears to be very jealous of the success of Ms Luis. The persons in question are: Blakegripling ph, who conspired to taint the reputation of Ms Luis. Please read these articles that will justify the notability of the achievements of Ms Luis:

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1150 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1023770461.html http://damnedinblue.blogspot.com/2006/04/architect-lira-luis-and-immortal.html http://www.aiany.org/firms/firm.php?id=1001563 http://archrecord.construction.com/archrecord2/live/OnTheSide/bowwowhaus.asp http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/602-2332920-3398253?asin=1424300479&afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&lnm=1424300479|FRANKly_Speaking:_It%27s_the_WRIGHT_Way_:_Books&ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060 http://archrecord.construction.com/archrecord2/work/0502/pod.asp http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1051 http://www.planetizen.com/node/14990 http://globalnation.inquirer.net/ofwspotlight/ofwspotlight/view_article.php?article_id=26967 http://goodnewspilipinas.com/wp/?p=865 http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=429618 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/cadalyst0607/index.php?startid=14 http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=437990&ref=25 www.midglen.com/newsletter/volume9.pdf http://www.jurgita.com/models-id218134.html Liraluis (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see another editor has attempted to provide you assistance in this matter; another suggestion I can give you is to try Deletion review. However, I think the route Orange Mike suggested is the better of the two, as far as your goal of having the article exist is concerned. Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I don't think the information about Adolf (manga) is trivial because it is by Osamu Tezuka, the world's most famous manga artist, the creator of Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion. It is the most popular manga which features Nazi.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you don't give me a response. I think you have to explain to me why you reverted my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must've gotten distracted. As I said in the edit summary when I removed the manga, it's just not as notable as the films in the section. As User:Lenin and McCarthy said when he also removed it, it's just a bit too trivial to be included in the list, which isn't mean to be exhaustive by any means. It's just supposed to be the most well-known examples. I doubt whether most people outside of the manga community are even aware of the manga's existence (I surely did not). In any case, if you think it should be included, you can pose the question on the article's talk pages, to see if Lenin and I are in the minority. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have left a message on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Would you please leave you a comment if you like?  Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Tonga help
Hey Parsec, long time no see. I'm trying to get back into the swing of things by re-writing Operation Tonga as part of the attempt to make the whole Normandy section better. I'm going at quite a pace, but I still can't get a hand combining the blasted references. If you've got a second, I'd be real greatful if you could do anything to help. Hope you're doing okay - what article are you working on at the moment? Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Skinny. I'll take a look at the references and see what I can do. Also, I was at a used bookstore the other day, and picked up a copy of Ridgeway's Paratroopers, which you've got as a reference in the Varsity article, but no actual citations for. I'll look through it and see where it can be used. I haven't done a whole lot of article work lately, mostly just stuff at WP:RM and various other admin-related tasks. I did just get SMS Von der Tann passed through ACR the other day, and at some point it'll go to FAC. We'll see how that goes :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate. I'm writing a lot now, and adding a lot of references. I know the article might seem long, but I think more detail is required than Varsity, and I'm also only aiming for GA-Class, as going above is what made me lose interest in wiki before. Ridgeway's Paratroopers is a nice book, and I would have used it for Varsity, but I've mislaid it and Clay Blair when I moved to start my MA in Coventry. Nice job on the Von der Tann by the way, good article! Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Good that you're doing what you like and avoiding the more stressful stuff; when wiki stops being fun that's when you know you need to start doing something differently or stop completely. I'm glad to hear you're back and still going to write great articles. I happened to see the book, and I didn't recognize Blair's name from when I condensed all of the refs in Operation Varsity. However, my mom's here for the weekend, so I'll probably be busy until tomorrow. Thanks for the compliment on VdT, I'd been working on it for a while :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind some advice. I've done 3rd Para Brigade in Tonga and about to finish 5th Brigade. I've started a section for 6th Air-landing Brigade as it did participate in the fighting, but apart from protecting the divisional hq it doesn't seem to have done much. Should I include it still and just make it a small section, or ignore it somehow? I'm leaning towards the former, but worried it wouldn't be large enough to warrant its own section. What do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it definitely warrants mention, and I think the section you've already got in the article does a pretty good job of describing the actions of the 6th Air-landing Bde. Sometimes there are pieces of a particular story (in this case, the story of Op Tonga) that are important, but there just isn't a whole lot you can say about them. I'd say as long as those pieces are described well, then that's all we can do in those instances. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the edit-conflict, was trying to do a dozen things at once. Cheers for the reference work, it's much appreciated. Looks like I've got a lot of references, but I think they're all needed, and I'm only going for GA. I'll try and expand the lead to three paragraphs (hate doing that) and then submit it for a Review. Skinny87 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries about the edit conflicts, I was just giving you a bit of a hard time about it :) Yeah, expanding the introduction to a suitable length is usually one of the more difficult things in creating a good article. That was one of the things I got gigged on when Von der Tann was peer reviewed back in July. Good luck with the GA review! Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeff eden
A tag has been placed on Jeff eden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about that; I've deleted the redirect per the CSD. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark to model
Thanks for the page move --Rumping (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Recent move proposal
Oops, sorry. I'll remember that next time. Thanks for the correction.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me? ] 23.09.08 1848 (UTC)

The Page You Deleted
You deleted the page "Anna Lira Luis" that I created. Please know that Ms. Lira Luis and her firm is not affiliated with this page that I created and you deleted. Since I am the creator of this page, I request that you completely take down this page, and not show the reason why you deleted this page in a log that still appears when I "google" Lira Luis. There is no one else that needs to know that this page has been deleted other than me, the creator and I wish this page to be completely taken out of the WIKIPEDIA page so that it does not show up when I do a search on Lira Luis. Since you said that the page I created is not "notable", then I assume no one will care too about why it was deleted from Wikipedia NOR why it was deleted. Please completely take the page down. Do not inform anybody that it does not exist anymore since no one will go there anyway, given that it is not notable, as you say. Please purge everything that is related to the page "Lira Luis". I do not want any WIKIPEDIA stuff coming out when I search for Lira Luis. Thank you. FanofLiraluis (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It cannot be permanently deleted by an administrator; you'd need someone with additional rights, and they don't typically oversight edits unless there are problems with personal information, severe WP:BLP concerns, or the like. If you want the photo you uploaded of Ms. Luis deleted, you should add Db-g7 to it to request its deletion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Eben-Emael
Hey,

If you've got a minute, I need some advice. Working on Battle of Fort Eben-Emael, but a lot of the initial work I'm rewriting/integrating was done by a non-english speaking user. Most of that is fine, but I'm unsure on how to proceed with a couple of sub-titles. Under 'Battle' I currently have 'The Bridges at Veldwezelt, Vroenhoven and Kanne' and 'Assault on Eben-Emael'. Now, for Varsity & Tonga, I used Brigade & Divisional titles as sub-titles for each section - 6th Airborne Division, 7th Brigade, etc. But I'm unsure how to proceed with this article. I could divide it into four sections, one for each Assault Group, but I don't think each group, apart from the one attacking the Fort, has enough material to sustain a seperate sub-section and might need to be placed into a single sub-section.

So, my question is, do the titles as they stand now a) make sense and b) MoS Compliant? And if not, what would you recommend I change them to? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the subsections titled by the actions rather than units are perfectly fine. I see nothing in the Milhist style guide that says that it should be any one way or other. Take a look at Operation Market-Garden, of which a substantial number of the sub-headers are titled "Nijmegen", "Oosterbeek", "Arnhem", etc. instead of unit names and so forth. I've also done a bit of copy-editing to the battle section, but it still needs some work. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I've got no further than 'German Preparation'. The chap who wrote the article is Belgian or Dutch, I believe. Nice chap, but it all needs to be rewritten and the good parts integrated. It'll take me a while, though. Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Substitution of Move template
Hi Parsecboy. To answer your question ("not sure why this was subst'd"), the move template was substituted to tweak the wording and the internal links (see end result), thus directing Wikipedians to the subpage in which the discussion was taking place (in accordance to the talk page split of August 2007). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:cre8solutions
I modified our entry BrideMalta the first time so as to exclude it from the advertising criteria and got a non-relevant note. I then inserted the reason why it's relevant and got it deleted again as 'advertising'. Are there guidelines anywhere or can you kindly give your reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8solutions (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking, the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically G11 and A7 (those under which the article had been requested to be deleted) may be of some help. Spam is a content guideline that more thoroughly covers the issue of advertising, and Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bouncy Numbers
The bouncy numbers page is in fact taken from Project Euler Problem 112, which copyright policy is here: Copyright Information.

It states that:

Can I make use of the problems elsewhere?

Yes! It is not only granted but it is encouraged for material to be shared and used freely for non-profit making purposes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextmean (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is, content on Wikipedia is released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which does not include the "non-commercial purposes" limitation. Therefore, it is possible for the Bouncy Numbers to be used by another website (say, a mirror encyclopedia that has ads) would be not be violating Wikipedia's license, but would be violating Project Euler's licensing. That's why we cannot use material that is licensed for non-commercial purposes only. I hope that answered your question. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops, GFDL allows commercial use and Creative NonCommercal commons doesn't (I didn't read the copyright notice properly) - thanks for that. --Nextmean (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad we've got everything straightened out. You can use the Project Euler material as a source, but the Wikipedia article has to be your own work of course. Parsecboy (talk) 02:26, 3 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) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... for completing the move proposal at Mental health counselor. Have a nice day. Whatever404 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Eben-Emael
Hey Parsec. I'm writing Battle of Fort Eben-Emael, and because it's not a huge airborne operation, only a few books cover it in any detail, and those books give little detail to Belgian preparations. Hence, the 'Belgian Preparation' section is about a third of what its German counterpart is. I'm trying to expand it, but information is rare for it, and the one source I have that might expand it is kinda dubious as it's more like a novel than an academic book. Given the paucity of information, do you think that would be acceptable for GA standards? Skinny87 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Belgian preparations section seems fine to me. I would think that typically, the attacker has more preparation work before a battle than a defender, especially if it's more or less a surprise, as it was in this case. Therefore, it's logical to me for the German section to be quite a bit larger than the Belgian section. One thing I would point out is that you've got a lot of fairly large paragraphs. I'd recommend splitting them up a bit, so it doesn't seem like such a massive wall of text. Another minor detail is some of the measurements need metric/standard converters, like the dimensions of Fort Eben-Emael in the Belgian preparations section. The only major thing I see is that the Aftermath section is pretty sparse. Is there any other information about post-battle activities at the fort? I did a quick Google Books search, but couldn't find much of anything.
 * On an unrelated note, SMS Von der Tann passed FAC last night, so I'm pretty pleased with that. It's my first FA, so I feel compelled to brag :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, one other thing, Image:Eben-Emael.jpg seems a little rough to me. Maybe take it to the Graphic Lab/Image workshop to have them spruce it up a bit? Maybe add a compass? Just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I haven't finished rewriting the article completely yet, and I need to get more info for the Aftermath section. I'll separate some of the paragraphs when I get time after uni. For the image, however, I'll see what I can do by taking it over to the workshop. Cheers again, and congrats on the Von der Tann Skinny87 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat move
Hey, can you move Unterseeboot 39 over German submarine U-39 when you have a chance? Right now the latter points to SM U-39, the WWI sub. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be all taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM
Do you realize you keep backlogging one day too far at WP:RM? JPG-GR (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am? I thought we only had 5 days up at a time. Thanks for letting me know, I won't do that anymore :) Parsecboy (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)