User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 6



Google
Can you also please fix the redirect at the top of Google to Google search as it is a high traffic link. I fixed the link in Template:Google Inc. Thanks. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I'd like to be a rollbacker. Can you get 'er done? Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Got 'er did :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

specificly what is roleback? short answer would be nice..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

never mind question answerd but new question if rollback is for vandle fighting. then can you give it to me? or do i have to do something first?ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

iowa vs yamato
im not done yet...--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about. Is there something I've missed or forgotten? Can you point me in the right direction? Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's on about a subject he seems to feel strongly about, namely about whether the Yamatos outclassed the Iowas. He's raised a few more points on the Talk:Super Yamato class battleship page and I think he expects you to debate them with him.  I left a brief note saying that that really isn't what these pages are for (let alone attendant OR and NPOV issues that might arise) but I leave it up to you how to take this forward.  I really don't envy you this, so good luck with that. ;) Benea (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have the matter in hand. Best wishes. Benea (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Here's the LSU barnstar, awarded for helping out with the situation on the LSU Tigers football article. Sf46 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)




 * Argh...it pains my scarlet and grey heart to be reminded of the wretched LSU Tigers :) I'll wear it with pride :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Washington State ferries
Another editor has added the  template to the article List of Washington State ferries, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 2 April 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) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user's talk page
Hello!

You recently blocked for vandalism. If you don't mind, please take a look at his edits on his own talk page after he got blocked, maybe it needs to be protected. What do you think?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked it over, and saw that Yamla already got to it, but I do agree that he was disruptively using the unblock request template. Thanks for letting me know, even though I didn't get there first :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

help vandle
get admin to quark pageANOMALY-117 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

i thank yeeANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I took care of the vandal, but in the future, it might be more helpful to provide a link to the vandal in question. You can also file a report at WP:AIV, which ensures that someone deals with the problem (you know, if I'm not on at the moment, for instance) Thanks for letting me know though. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

usually i just revert and go about my bissness but he kept changing it. again thanks he was starting to get annoying--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC) User:11schrp TEACH ME HOW TO LINK UM BUT HERE IS ANOTHER


 * One way to link is to use the template, like , which produces . It's handy because it creates links to the user page, the talk page, and also their contribution record. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

thanksANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexandre Dinerchtein article
Thank you for your help on the move of the Alexandre Dinerchtein article! Could you perhaps also move Talk:Alexandre Dinerchtein around again? HermanHiddema (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gar, I hate when that happens :) I just fixed it, thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LisaTown777
First, thank you for having served our great (yet conservative) country! I am sorry to hear about your injury and hope that you have adapted to a fruitful life post Army-life. The mission of the company that I work for is to "create jobs for people disabilities," and is one of the largest employers of people with disabilities in the U.S. (www.prideindustries.com) All of that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, my posting of links, which was done for the greater good of bringing awareness of this free, DoD-sponsored website to the military masses. With the DoD, we don't have a large budget and since it is PCS season, we are trying to spread the good word. So, hence my posting of the links to each of the military installation sites. Thank you for pointing out the reference to "What wikipedia is and what it isn't." I didn't see how what I was doing was a) against the statements made in the article nor b) that was any different than what other people do when posting external links.

May I ask, what is your particular issue with the AHRN.com links? Do you go around deleting all of the external links that you see that you don't like? I'd like to understand your position.

Humbly, Lisa, project manager for AHRN.com

Lisatown777 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly note, new messages go on the bottom of talk pages. I understand that you're just trying to spread the word, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a message board. Specifically, on the "What Wikipedia is not" page, you might want to take another look at NOT, where it states that Wikipedia is not the white or yellow pages. Generally, when external links are valid, they add something to the value of the article, for example, an article about a band would have a link to their official page. I'm not sure why I didn't point you towards the actual guideline for external links originally, I apparently wasn't thinking clearly. That page is External links. There, you'll see in the section titled "Links normally to be avoided", in line 13, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". The section EL is especially applicable to this case, which is explained in the first few sentences of that section. I hope that helps answer your questions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman
On user:Aradic-en demand I have started request for arbitration. You are involved party in this request.--Rjecina (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Alice
Thanks for moving Princess Alice (disambiguation) to Princess Alice. I think that's the right place for it. But I have a question: Do I have to list a requested move for the talk page, too? Right now Talk:Princess Alice redirects to Talk:SS Princess Alice (1865) and the correct (I think) talk page is still at Talk:Princess Alice (disambiguation). Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just fixed the talk page to match the mainspace. Sometimes the talk pages will fail to move along with the mainspace page, although I'm not exactly sure why. The only thing I can think of is if the redirected talk page has more than one edit (i.e., more than the move edit that created the redirect automatically), it would have to be moved separately, to confirm the deletion of the targeted redirect. However, that wasn't the case in this situation. So I'm still confused. In any case, if this happens again, I'm sure you can just let whoever moved the page know that the talk didn't go along with it, and they'll fix it. If not, I'll be happy to help anytime. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

United States Army
The image I removed was that of a soldier with his face blown off. Apparently someone was vandalizing by replacing the mortar image in several articles with the gory image, and I didn't know that at the time. I'm still not sure how they did it, as the file name is the same....Asher196 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This image? I'm still seeing the original photo, of the M120 mortar team firing a round. Also, there's only one version of the image in the upload history. Perhaps there's a browswer problem going on. I just performed a hard reload on IE6, and the image remained as normal, so it shouldn't be on my end. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last night I was browsing through newly uploaded images and came across the image of the soldier with his face blown off. I looked to see if it was attached to any articles and found it was attached to the United States Army article.  I went ahead and deleted the image.  Apparently the image has now been deleted from Wikipedia.  I'm not sure how this vandalism was done, but the image I deleted was bad....very bad....Asher196 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not sure how that could've happened. There is still only the one listing in the image upload history, and there aren't any deleted edits for that file name. It must've been oversighted between when you saw it and when I checked it this morning. Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity
Hi there! I'm trying to improve the Operation Varsity article, and I saw that you commented on the Talk page of the article some time ago. I was wondering if you knew where the quote from the introduction came from - stating that the United States Military Academy considered the operation "the" airborne operation to be considered - or any of the statistics? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure as far as any sources go, but I do remember hearing something along those lines when I was a paratrooper in the XVIII Airborne, which, of course, doesn't count for much as far as Wikipedia's concerned. I'll see if I can dig something up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for that. I've taken out some of the sentences I've been unable to verify, but if that sentence is true then it would be nice to keep in, and perhaps contrast to Max Hasting's view. I know the article is a mess at the moment, but I think the basic structure is in place, I just need to start writing. Skinny87 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to find anything about the line above yet, but I did find this, which could be helpful. It appears to be a reliable source. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that source, I've incorporated it into the article. Now, I believe I've found at least one picture of Varsity that could be used in the article, on an internet site. However, I'm unsure of it's validity and, more importantly, if I would even be allowed to use it in the article. What's the policy on things like that? Skinny87 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the image itself. If it were taken by an Army PAO, then it would be a work of the United States government, and therefore in the public domain. If it were just taken by a soldier, for his personal use, it would then be copyrighted, at which point the only option would be to claim fair use. However, I'm sure there are PD images from the operation, so any fair use claim would therefore be invalid, because the image would be replaceable. Can you point me to the image you're considering, so I can take a look too? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two. First one is here: http://www.ww2-airborne.us/18corps/17abn/17images/466th_prep_opvarsity.jpg and the second is here: http://www.1canpara.com/pictures/wartime_photos/c_coy_bren_position_coverung_dz_varsity_march_24_1945.jpg Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there isn't any copyright information for either of those two. I did email the Fort Bragg historian to see if she has any further information than what we've already found, and any photographs of XVIII Airborne Corps soldiers with suitable copyright status. Hopefully she'll email me back soon. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just purchased a book (Odhams History of the Second World War) from my local second-hand bookstore, which contains a number of Varsity-related images. Can I just scan them in and use them for the article? Or is that against copyright? Skinny87 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, it would depend on who took the photos and in what capacity. If it has any maps that were created by the military, then they're in the public domain, and you can upload them with PD-USGOV. The same goes for any pictures taken by military personnel in the line of duty (i.e., by combat camera, public affairs, etc.). The images should have their copyright status in the book somewhere, either in the caption, or in a section of the book reserved for copyright information. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being patient with me, I appreciate it. Now, given the blasted thing was published in 1951, it seems to have no copyright information (doesn't even have an ISBN!) apart from something that says 'Copyright S.1051.S' on the same page which says it was printed in 1951. As to the pictures, they all look like they were taken by military personnel in the line of duty, as they all look similar to those in WWII articles already on wiki, as do the maps. So...I guess I'm not sure, although I reckon PD-USGOV might cover them, if there was a British government version for some of them. Skinny87 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, it took me a while to understand copyright law in the US, and I am by no means an expert :) I've been looking through Title 17 of the United States Code (which deals with copyrights), and I can't find anything about any statute 1051. It has since become clear that the book wasn't published in the US, so it's probably referring to a statute in the British law code. I know next to nothing about the British legal code, so maybe it's time to ask the experts on Commons? From what I do understand, according to the Copyright law of the United Kingdom andCrown_Copyright articles, it would seem that any work by the British military would be public domain 50 years after publication. However, we'd still need the source information to confirm the copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry, I'll ask the experts on the Common, if you could show me where to go. Apologies for not saying it was a British book! Skinny87 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! Now then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gale.jpg this image seems to have been found on the Imperial War Museums online photograph collection. Searching through said collection I found these images: http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpcgi.exe and I believe picture 5, of the snow-covered tank, would be eligible for insertion under the copyright template placed under the picture of General Gale that I first linked to. I just don't know how to add it to the article! Sorry for bombarding you with different bits! Skinny87 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest asking any questions at the Commons Help Desk, I've asked copyright questions there in the past, and gotten prompt replies. Don't worry about not saying it was British, I figured it out :)
 * For some reason, the second link to the IWM isn't working for me; it keeps telling me that the database can't be reached that way. I would assume that the template for the Gen. Gale photo would work for it as well though. And don't worry about asking questions, I'm glad I can help. That's part of the job of being an admin, right? Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that would happen. Maybe |this will work. If not, then any of the photos from a search for 'Operation Varsity' from this site: http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/qryPhotoImg.asp could be used in the article, presumably under the same template as the photo of General Gale. Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems my links above don't want to work, so to avoid me bothering you anymore, I'll ask at the Commons area you mentioned. Would you mind showing me where I could ask about uploading images and their copyrights. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the link was in the comment above mine. Well, don't I feel stupid. Thanks for all the help anywhow. Skinny87 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, sometimes the websites have technical difficulties. A little while ago, the DANFS website (which is one of the major references we use at WP:SHIPS) was down for several days. The Fort Bragg historian emailed me back, and said that the best place to look for photos would be in the National Archives, but I haven't had time to look around much as of yet. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, now, the IWM has managed to get their website up and running, and I've located at least one suitable image. I believe it would fall under the same category as the picture of General Gale I linked above. What should I do next? Just upload it with the same boilerplate that the General Gage picture has? Skinny87 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, just upload the image with the same template the Gen. Gale photograph has, and it should be fine. Parsecboy (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!
I apologize for my comment/question and how do you create an image. (talk) 12.39, 26 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, new comments should go on the bottom of the talk page. You can upload images at Upload, although you may want to read Image use policy before uploading any images, to ensure that you are using the correct licenses. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AK-47 at FAR
AK-47 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.

Marie-Louise O'Murphy
Hey, Parsecboy, would you be so kind as to take a look at the Marie-Louise O'Murphy article. It seems to have be rewritten (in about twenty increments) by someone with a very poor command of English. I'm not sure how to roll it back to the last fluent English version -- or if I even can do that. I figured you'd know what to do. Thanks. Roregan (talk) 01:15, 3 May 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) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA
 Hello Parsecboy, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and do not manipulate other's users comments to prove your point.
Hello, I see that you manipulated my comment to change its meaning. Please avoid such things in the future, I consider manipulation of other user's comments highly offensive. I hope this can be avoided in the future and we can engage in civil discussion. Thank you and best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how changing the thread title is manipulating your comments, especially when you presented the thread in a deliberately misleading manner. You don't own a particular thread, and any user can rename the title if they think it's poorly chosen. Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)