User talk:Woody/Archive 6

Greetings (and some Milhist business)
First, happy new year!

Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?

Thanks! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot
Thanks for unblocking Lightmouse. Would you be kind enough to unblock Lightbot? I will not use the bot to unlink common units of measurement until the RFC has concluded. But there are many other good tasks that it can do. Lightmouse (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thanks again for keeping the troops and barracks in order.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople
I see you checked the Siege of Constantinople (1203). About the citation it has more but apparently the page gives not the latest version it has at least 7 citation. I don’t now if it matters but I say it any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindanl (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

eirigi alternative video
I already left a comment on the talk page of the "hero" song explaining my reasons for including it. You have not responded to it nor have you provided a credible reason for continuously removing my edit. Your opinion on whether the material is irrelevant is the only irrelevant issue here. I don't understand your "it needs to be discussed by a reliable "third-party" source for it to be considered cited" comment so if you could point me in the direction of a page of wiki law explaining the workings of that system that would be super. My understanding is that a citation is supposed to back up the material provided. The citation I provided does exactly that as it goes straight to the root. The only part that I could see to be slightly contentious is the removal of video from hosting sites section so you can stick a "citation needed" note beside it if you don't trust the current one. Finally, thank you for alerting me to that three reverts rule but I will be restoring the material unless you can provide me with an obvious rule/law preventing me from doing so like I suggested above. As I said, it's as relevant and neutral/unbiased as the help for "heroes" release and fully referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.111.190 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a reply at Talk:Hero (Mariah Carey song) and have asked for comments from several projects. Woody (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for at least having the courtesy to respond. Your mate, the "neutral" participant, seems to have things sorted out nicely and the reputation of your brave "heroes" will remain intact. Also for the record, if I glanced correctly at the page, it would appear to me that I have not broken the rule you quoted as I didn't make more than three reverts in the space of 24 hours. Anyway, as you'd say it's "irrelevant". All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.111.190 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea of full protection is to prevent edit warring, which is what was developing, and to encourage discussion. If you can reply to issues and conflicts with policies on the talkpage, that would be great and the issues can be resolved amicably. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Chappuis
Where do you stand on the WP:MILHIST A-Class review of Bob Chappuis?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots and autoblocks
Re: this edit: isn't the toolserver in the autoblock exemption list? (I can't remember where that page is) -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki search rocks! It's apparently there already: MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist, so it shouldn't be a concern (except if there is an other IP range for the toolserver). -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

unnecessary Hero article
Fine, it's at AFD, where it will inevitably be deleted, but will waste effort from a group of editors to accomplish the same result. Pay attention to the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle next time ... you were "Bold", I "reverted", and that made it your turn to "discuss", not your chance to undo the redirect and demand that I take it to AFD.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletionpedia
HI, this is Atom98 , i need ur help as there is one article in the name "N.Bupenda Meitei" which is already in deletionpedia ,though currently its in other version alive, i need ur help in removing that article from deletionpedia which was deleted on 26April,2008 15:15 by u .May i know how could that deleted article be removed from the deletionpedia wholely n effectively as that merely makes the article childish n less significant bcoz when we do google search,we also find "Bupenda" in deletionpedia. i would be so obliged n looking forward to ur help Atom98 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quick question
Yes, the problem is that the template checks to make sure the associated page exists (in order to catch tags on deleted articles), and that check fails for images on commons. It shouldn't be too difficult to turn the check off for image files, though; I'll see what I can do when I get a bit of free time. Kirill 13:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 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) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cunningham and Messina
Given your interest in "ABC" Cunningham, I thought this thread might be of interest. Given the citicism of ABC, perhaps there should be info in the article. Regards, Folks at 137 (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the WP:TPS. In A Sailor's Odyssey Cunningham says he didn't have any plan to cover the Straits of Messina, but Winton in his biography says that he did, but according to his staff was probably mindful of earlier losses of ships, rather unsurprisingly.  Unfortunately, Alexander assumed that he did have a plan and didn't call him on it. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
You're right I don't. It's something I've thought about for a while now, but while I've read up on them, I never got around to doing much about it. Didn't feel it was something I should bother anyone with I suppose, since it didn't seem of earth-shattering importance to the community that I have it. But if you're offering, that's very kind of you! Benea (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MOSLINK
Your comment at the illegitimate MOLINK merger is unhelpful. Kotniski had no consensus to leap in and suddenly implement his proposal, especially as there was serious disagreement about wording. This was asking for trouble. How many people supported this, if you seem to be making a case that "only two people objected"? And I think you should withdraw your accusation of ownership; it is blatantly supporting one side in this dispute—is that your intention? Tony  (talk)  16:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment on that page Tony. There was obvious consensus for a merger that has been the elephant in the room for a long time. There is no need for several pages on one topic; you should be glad, now there is only one talkpage for you to frequent. My intention was to highlight my belief that you do indeed exhibit signs of ownership on MOS pages, especially regarding links. That you refuse to accept changes and call other peoples edits illegitimate is indicative of the problem I think. I did not intend to take sides, I am not on a side, the only side I am on is the side of the articles. This is not a war Tony, stop trying to turn it into one. Woody (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

 * I forgot to reply to your message earlier: apologies! The suffrage issue didn't seem to make much practical difference so I ignored it but we do need to clarify it next year. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:IDogLights.JPG
I have had this image in a tab for a few days because I didn't know what to do here. However I have a stupid question: If the image of the iDog is unfree as a derivative work, aren't other works such as say File:Coca-cola 50cl white-bg.jpg unfree too? -- lucasbfr  talk 11:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Non-free content review‎. I have opened up a discussion to discuss just that. To be honest, I am not that clued up on deriative work law, especially since I read M Godwin's comment on the Rubiks Cube image. So, better to let people discuss it I think. Woody (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone is actually reading this page, looking at the threads above :D -- lucasbfr  talk 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was beginning to wonder... Maybe a cross post somewhere, usually there are plenty of people willing to opine about Fair-use ;) Woody (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article rating
This is with reference to the following 2 articles- 1. Maratha kingdom and 2. Shivaji. Kindly tell me the procedure, which should be followed in improving these articles (or for that matter any article) and how can I help in getting these articles the ‘A’ rating? ThanksKesangh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Mark Donaldson
Fast. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I was updating Holbrook's page when I heard the news Albatross2147 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Durrani Empire
The map showing the extent of the Durrani Empire (File:Afgempdur.jpg) doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Firstly, the map is not in English, which makes it impossible to understand it. Such a map has very high chances of misleading the readers instead of guiding them. Also, the map doesn’t tell the actual year (time) of the maximum extent of Durrani Empire.

Secondly, the portion in stripes is shown covering Rajputana, part of present day Maharashtra and even Malwa- the stronghold of Holkars (Holkars and Shindes were potent forces even after the Maratha defeat at Panipat). Even though the Marathas had lost the battle of Panipat, there wasn’t any chance that anyone (including Abdali) could come even near to the present day Maharashtra. This map doesn’t seem to be made by an expert and I also have doubts over the eastern extent of the empire. It seems to be highly biased, violating Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and seems to be made by an Abdali follower. This map needs to be removed from all the articles like Durrani Empire, Ahmad Shah Abdali, Afghanistan, etc. Kindly help. ThanksKesangh (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2009

Date ranges
I was reading MOS:NUM to double-check the Wikipedian way to describe date ranges in order to properly write out multi-day conference dates for UNASUR and found that neither ranges that belong to one year or ranges that belong to one month are addressed in this MOS. I wrote out a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) but I cannot fix this omission myself unless I become an admin, which seems too far down the pipeline (I have been an editor since 2005 and on WP:ADCO/RFC since August without contact). I have come to you because you locked the page. Please, help me. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is regarding my redirect to a fresh archive from my talk page. Have you ever tried to look up something you left on somebody's talk page only to find yourself, with a link to an archived subsection, needing to search through dozens of archives? I have and it is a frustrating task that nearly crashes my computer. So I thought, "How can we both maintain an ongoing archive system and ensure that the link people have in their contributions will permanently take them to the right discussion?" If I redirect my talk page to a subdirectory that has my current archive and merely change the re-direct address when the page starts to tell me, "It takes xx bytes to load this page, maybe you should archive....", all links to that page will be to the permanent address. I do lose out on the "New messages" thing, which is unfortunate to me, but I thought I was being more mindful of everyone else. :)--Thecurran (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Just wanted to say thanks for helping get me unblocked. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 12:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Obadiah
A great deal (none sourced to reliable sources, though) was merged, per this []. Another editor removed most of it -- i think arguably correctly, since there are no reliable sources for a great deal of info about this bible class. The are a number of COI issues at that page that i don't feel particularly interested in engaging at the moment. But if you want to argue for the reinclusion of this material with the active editors over there, please go ahead.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

VC hidden comment
Now why didn't I think of doing it that way? (Thanks.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI Pdfpdf (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's that
I din't mean to imply anything about your integrity - I am sorry if that could be an interpretation... Albatross2147 (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pitmilly; Problem with moving the article.
Hello Woody,

I have just moved my new article, Pitmilly, from my sandbox. All seems well except that the notes and the references do not seem to have moved. I am scared that somehow I have lost them. Can you help? The other omission is the Table of Contents; I thought that this happened automatically. Was I wrong? As always, any other suggestions you may have will be welcome.

Happy New Year.Inver471ness (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pitmilly; further developments


 * Woody, My timing is awful. Today, I received a letter from the archeologist in Fife,Scotland, someone to whom I had written a long time ago. While I have not had a chance to compare fully his dates and information with what I had gleaned from other sources, I think that I will have to revise my article somewhat- and I thought I was finished!


 * It seems to me that the best thing to do would be to transfer my article back to my sandbox for any modification. Is that possible? Of course,I am still concerned with the problems that I raised in my last communication. I am sorry for the inconvience.Inver471ness (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pitmilly; thanks for the help.


 * Hello Woody, Thanks for your prompt help. It's impressive how you fixed my problems so quickly. I now understand the TOC protocol. As for the references and notes, I thought that I had been so careful- just not sufficiently careful, I guess. I shall evaluate the archeologist's material and revise the article as necessary, as you suggest. With best wishes,Inver471ness (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Frisian-Frankish Wars
I added some more citations to the article. Hope it is enough to pas for B class Pindanl (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin thing
Good point. Please see my response, at my talk and, largely duplicated, at ANI. I've also mentioned it at the Admin talk page. Tony  (talk)  14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting portals
Hi. When you delete a portal, please remember to use special:PrefixIndex to check for subpages. (I have deleted some pages left from when you deleted Portal:Aquaria.) Thanks. --B (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Victoria Cross
As for the source of the metal for the Canadian Victoria Cross, there are a number of them but particularly here:  I'll add references.

I will try to be more diligent regarding the preview button when editing, but promise nothing. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

VC for Oz
Re: This and this; it's is all becoming a bit tedious, isn't it. Have you seen these? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

VC

 * Reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this better? If so, is it acceptable? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Willie Gillis
Are your image issues resolved yet? If so, this can be closed. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 02:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Daring
Woody I took the step of sorting out the references in the Affiliations section of HMS Daring (D32). The way I see it, if it refers to the affiliation, it's a reference, but if it's a link to the organisation's homepage, it's an external link. Please have a scan and check I'm on the right track, if you've got the time and interest! By the way, I thought you made a good job of the Aston Villa bit. Since the rest of the world now calls it HMS Daring (see every press article), and she flies the white ensign, do you think the first five words of the article are now past their sell-by-date? Shem (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the external links; I think the whole section looks much better now. Thanks for your help. Shem (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to Move an article: Marilyn Marshall
Hi Woody. Hoping you would be so very kind as to move the current Marilyn Marshall article back to its first location. This particular jazz recording artist is known as "Ms. Marilyn Marshall." The Wikipedia article should reflect that. The "Ms" avoids confusion with those who have the same name and are in different field. I thank you kindly. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggravated (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should never have been moved to begin with. It's first location was just fine. These movements that the editors make are so unneccesary. I will contact the people that you requested. Hopefully the next edits made will be more constructive, and resticted to only those that are necessary.


 * cheers!


 * Aggravated (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients
Hi Woody. I was looking through the above when I noticed a discrepancy. In the lead, it states that Alfred John Shout's VC was awarded posthumously for his actions at Gallipoli, but the posthumous element is not reflected in the list by the asterisk and colouring. One or the other needs to be clarified, and I figured you were (naturally) the best person to ask if you would be able to do so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that would have been the case. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bugle
Oh bugger! I knew there was something missing. Do you want to roll it over? It's looking silly busy! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mildred Bylane
Thank you, I figured that would be the case when I reverted that edit. No worries, just trying to clean up a mess of spaghetti, and finding a difference in how admins operate in the same article space. SpikeJones (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

VC vs GC
a) I would indeed prefer to discuss it ALL in the one place. b) They do not even address the questions I asked, let alone answer them. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay and William II de la Haya
Hello Woody, You will remember helping me with the “Origins of the Clan” in Clan Hay and with William II. Unfortunately, I have a problem. Czar Brodie on 2 Jan 09 (a) removed all that I had written after pretty thorough research and substituted his own version, which is inaccurate and (b) added the Legend of Luncarty. I am content to see the Legend added and have made only one change, namely to separate the legend from the historical version. The way it was written looks like a direct quote, and if so, it should be referenced. I have done nothing about that aspect because there are more important matters with which to deal. The removal of all my work is annoying and I would like to have it re-instated. (Czar Brodie may not be interested, but others of Clan Hay will be.) Is it possible to do this after all the changes that have followed? How should I do it? If we reinstate my version, I anticipate that we shall have to remove some of Czar Brodie’s writing. I think that would be anything dealt with in William II de la Haya. Incidentally, Czar Brodie ruffled the feathers of another editor a short time ago by calling him (her) a WikiNazi. I saw his piece, which was written in an inappropriate tone and claimed that the present chief had no right to be chief. The other editor removed the offending paragraph. Judging from Czar Brodie’s previous behavior, I suppose we may have a fight on our hands. Re:Clan Hay; Regrant of the Earl of Erroll This does not concern me directly, but this whole discussion seems to be inappropriate in a general article on Clan Hay; it’s much too detailed. Mind you, I do not know where would be a suitable place in Wikipedia for it, or even whether it belongs at all. What course do you recommend?

CordiallyInver471ness (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

William McGregor
ChrisTheDude and I have been doing some work on William McGregor with thoughts of FAC. Or to be more accurate, Chris did most of it and I filled in some gaps. The Villa section is probably the lightest part now, so I was wondering, do your Villa books happen to have anything else worth adding? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well, thanks for taking the time to look. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi Woody. Given your experience with lists of award recipients, I was wondering if you would mind having a look here? I have constructed a list of Australian George Cross recipients, including exchange awards, using your VC lists as a basis (mainly the Australian and Canadian lists), and I was wondering if you would be willing to provide me some feedback on the list before I launch it into the mainspace as I have hopes of taking it up to FL. If you are too busy or prefer not to, then please do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks which ever way, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Woody. I think I have taken addressed all of your initial comments. Would you mind having another look? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hope you don't mind, Woody, but I stumbled across your sandbox with the list of good VC bios and added a few entries. I normally would not have edited someone else's sandbox without permission, but I read the note you had posted on your main sandboxbax page stating you did not mind if editors edited your sandboxes, so I was bold. ;-) However, if I was out of line, then please do not hesitate to say so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I decided to take the plunge and move the article into the mainspace. I have also requested an ACR on the article, hoping to iron out any problems before FLC. However, if you are still willing, I would really appreciate it if you were able to provide me with and further comments on improving the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hayand William II de la Haya; thanks
Woody, Thanks for your advice. I thought that this problem might be complicated. I agree that Wikipedia is no place to debate the authenticity of  the Chief; that was why I was concerned when this was done.

I don't think we are debating the origin of the clan; Czar Brodie simply removed earlier, much more complete material.

Anyway, I'll try to follow up on your suggestion.

What is your recommendation aboutClan Hay; Regrantof the Earl of Erroll?

Regards71.208.63.59 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alanbrooke
I'd already unprotected the article page, since that was an error, i accept what you say, and I've unprotected talk too. jimfbleak (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FLC nomination
Dear Woody, thanks for your input. I'm familiar with the DYK process and the FA process, but I've never been deeply involved with the FL process. When you try something new, you're bound to make some mistakes. I'm grateful for your input. Here is a cookie for you.



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

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your actions regarding the above; I appreciate it. With the kind assistance of User:Dabomb87, the nomination has been removed and deleted per my request by the FL directors. If you are still willing, though, I'd appreciate any further comments and/or guidence in regards to the list that you would be able to provide. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross recipients
Further to the message you left me regarding actions on dates within quotes and citations: There is actually little I can do if I do not see the citation marks, and they are easily missed if they are just single or double quote marks. However, I am going through your list of VC recipients and have been inserting non-breaking spaces to protect those which are susceptible to change. As a percentage, this does not seem to be very great - so far, I have found citations/quotations exist in maybe 1 in eight or ten cases. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 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) 05:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay
I have been informed that User:Inver471ness is spreading libel on my name. He insinuates that I am by calling others "a WikiNazi". I understand you are one of those he has so informed. This information is totaly false and without foundation. Nor did I try to say that the current that the present chief had no right to be chief, it was I who deleted then ofending paragraphs, see link and link. I attach my responce to these false accusations at User talk:Inver471ness's page. If you need further clarification on the matter, please inform me. I would prefer that this mater is not discussed behind my back. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Inver471ness, glade to see you are editing Clan Hay. I do not own the text on Clan Hay, so do not care if you delete, change, etc... Actually I quite welcome it, my edits were speedy copy pastes from old public domain books, all referenced with links. This is actually a bit crude, but given two users (I think one user and a sock puppet), edits on the chief with dubious links, I thought it best to have an article with references. As my arguments were that the editors edits were badly referenced, it seemed strange I demand references from him/them in an article without references. Oh, and I never did, and never would, call another editor a "WikiNazi", please do not insinuate such things. What I think you are referring to is this that has:


 * 15:47, 2 January 2009 94.192.28.218 (Talk) (700 bytes) (Discussing CzarBrodies Facism) (undo)


 * I took offence on this title of edit and stated I stated "Firstly I am not a fascist. My political views are strictly none of your business. I take your talk edit title hereto as an offence....".
 * Please do not insinuate to other editors I am calling others a "WikiNazi" without properly checking the facts.
 * the conversation, that apart from the said unfortunate title, was quite civilized, the full text before a user deleted text can be seen here
 * Please note, that if you want to reinstall text, edit, please use references, the paragraph you added is not referenced (as apposed to the paragraph you deleted), I tagged the text for references and clarification. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it seemed like I came on a bit strong. This is a point I wanted to make clear, crystal clear, and as my edits on the respective talk pages were completely misinterpreted, I felt the choice of words should leave nothing to doubt. Thanks for dropping User:Inver471ness a line on the subject. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Oz GCs
Hi Woody. Thanks all of your help on the above; I really appreciate it. The list has just passed it's ACR, so I went ahead and nominated it for FLC (see here). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay and my apologies to Czar Brodie
Hello Woody, I shall contact Czar Brodie to apologize because I made an unfortunate mistake. From the tone of his message, I am sure that we can work together to make the Clan Hay article better.

Regards,Inver471ness (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar Revolution
Hi Woody, I recently listed this article at WP:PR after a short period at WP:FAC (I should have gone to PR first) and noticed that you were listed at WP:Peer review/volunteers. Remembering the good work you did reviewing my last FA (Anglo-Zanzibar War) I wondered if you could check through this one for me. I realise that you are away from your computer at the moment but there is no hurry for this and it will remain at PR for a while yet. Many Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So SORRY!!!
I am so sorry I was trying to work on something in my Sandbox and I guess I started editing the WikiProject Page. I didn't mean any harm by doing this and I hope you can forgive me. Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 21:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I will start watching my titles closer now that this has happened, thank you for the understanding! Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of William II de Haya into Clan Hay
Hello Woody, I am just drawing this to your attention in case you wish to comment.Inver471ness (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AVFC seasons/accessibility
Hi, and let me start by saying how delighted I am that the team from B6 are enjoying such a successful season, and the less said about my lot the better. I just reverted Mr Hall of England changing Aston Villa F.C. seasons to his alternate version (my fault for rattling his cage by deleting the alternate version from the article talk page where he was maintaining it) and repeated your explanation that the rowspans cause problems for users of screen readers. Then started wondering whether it's actually still true that row/colspans are an accessibility problem? I can't find anything to that effect, but possibly I'm not looking in the right place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk
There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown


Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on File:Thistlegorm train parts minus red edit.jpg - quite striking. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what friends are for :)
Tehehe ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

hi i am Geniusface
I am in the middle of creating the Farwell House page. It is an actual archaeological site, located at Storrs, Connecticut. Please help me keep it until I am finished with it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geniusface (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle United Protection
At what frequency of vandalism would it be appropriate to protect the Newcastle United F.C. article? Approximately 18% of the last 500 edits have been vandalism and the required clean up. The page has also been protected for various lengths of time throughout that period. I understand your comment regarding the repeated request for protection but there are going to be continued concerns while the season comes to a close over the next couple months. If there is some sort of benchmark that needs to be reached let me know and I'll hold off making another request until then. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the info.Cptnono (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators
There are currently 13 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is one spot left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Swoboda
Hi Woody, Thank you for locking the Swoboda page. Would you have another look at my last version and consider restoring it for the time being? I think it's more properly sourced and written than the version that's currently locked in, which is the POV playground I came upon a few hours ago. Thanks for your trouble, JNW (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, Woody (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the body of the Alois P. Swoboda section the article from Time is Misquoted. The real article as referenced only mentions that a injunction had been filed and does not say that Swoboda "fleeced" his clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowell58 (talk • contribs)


 * Please discuss it at Talk:Alois P. Swoboda and come to a consensus on the matter. I have no interest either way, I just don't want everyone edit warring on the page. Woody (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Woody, Setting the Swoboda page back to the way it was is not right. Almost NONE of what is written has any references or proof to back it up. I gave several links that backed up everything that I said. REAL SOURCES- the AMA, TIME magazine, the Woodrow Wilson House. Neither JNW, nor Lowell58 have offered any proof. Almost everything they have written cannot be verfied. I challenge them to post their proof! Failing that you have no other choice than to remove their contributions. Whammer79 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please discuss it at Talk:Alois P. Swoboda and come to a consensus on the matter. YOU need to discuss it with the other editors, not discuss it with me. Soon the page will be unprotected, unless you don't discuss it and the protection will be extended. I have no interest either way, I just don't want everyone edit warring on the page. Woody (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Woody,

Take a look at my talk page. Lowell has revealed my real name on it- this man is a complete NUT JOB and I want him banned!!! Whammer79 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process
Hi Woody, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, at some point today. Woody (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian Chiefs of the Defence Staff
Hey Woody, based on the discussion here, you were put forward as a person that help look at this article for assessing if it is good enough for WP:FL. Would you be willing to have a look, and if not, could you suggest someone that would be willing, or able, to look? T ARTARUS talk 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to, I should have some time tonight. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scorpion, I have an article that I would like to run by you given the current discussions on content forks. What do you think of List of Canadian Chiefs of the Defence Staff when compared to Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada). Would that list be considered a content fork by yourself? Woody (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's necessarily a fork, but it does largely recreate the content of another page (I believe the difference is that forks nearly completely split off content). The list is actually more detailed than the article, so I think they could be merged together. -- Scorpion 0422  18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I thought that when I reviewed it. Would it still be considered as a list, or as an article if it was merged? Woody (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on what tyhe article looks like and whether or not it can be expanded. -- Scorpion 0422  18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FA categorization of Warfare
Hi Woody. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. Usually at this point we begin to subdivide the category. Could you please give your opinion on whether or how we should do this? Wikipedia talk:FA Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer)
The debate to refer to Australian soccer to "football" or association football" from the agreed term football (soccer) has returned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits Please give your thoughts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and am sorry that you decided not to run for reelection. – Joe   N  01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I was sad to hear that you decided not to run for re-election this time, Woody, but I hope RL treats you well and you continue your excellent contributions to the project. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
See Template_talk:ArticleHistory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 06:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 00:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shivaji
Don’t you think that the current rating of ‘Shivaji’ is lower than what it should be. Adequate inline citatons have now been provided and the article is suppported by a good number of references. Please see if the article can be promoted to a higher class. If not, then kindly suggest the changes that can be made to the article. ThanksKesangh (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernst & Young
Dear Woody, since you were involved in a similar situation re. this article in November 2008, I would like to ask for your advice: what is the best action for the edit-war-like situation developing on Ernst & Young. The user who keeps on inserting the same fact is anonymous. I posted my opinion on his/her discussion page. We seem to disagree about what is encyclopedically relevant. Rlendog also thought it not relevant. Kind regards, Encyo (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Wooody. Thanks for your advice on my TP. You might have seen that after one reply Anonymous did not respond any more. It could mean that he/she concedes, the disputed line was not re-entered either. I suppose that's it. Thanks again, Encyo (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shivaji
I've put this article up for review and i would like you to review this article. The article deserves a better rating than the one it currently has. The article seems to be well structured and covers the entire life of Shivaji. It no more seems to have the problem of NPOV and peacock terms. Thanks Kesangh (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)
The article doesn't explain why Villa went into the UEFA Cup in 1990-91. If Liverpool had to serve an extra year's ban because of Heysel, why were Villa not put forward for the European Cup instead, and Spurs for the UEFA Cup? --Jameboy (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I
Hi thanks for the review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British Army during World War I I have changed the article in line with suggestions if you could revisit the article when you have time. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Non-article Canada-related pages
Hi- The above category is deprecated, it's from the pre-WPBM WikiProject Canada template. The /Assessment page doesn't link to this anymore, why wouldn't it be deleted, since it's not populated by the newly updated template? Could you please reinstate the db-c3? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. BTW, which db template would you recommend to use for WP categories that have been deprecated, due to re-targeting of the WPBM template? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move war
Hello

Sorry, I’m writing to you with a problem:

I’m getting into an edit war with an editor who wants to move this page- U-boat Campaign (World War I) to here-Battle of the Atlantic 1914-1918. As there isn’t a way to undo it, except to invent yet another variant on the title in order to change it, I’m looking for an admin who may have an interest in the subject. The reasons for the change are given here, as are the reasons to stay. Can you advise? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that (and for the vindication; I wasn't sure if I'd got it wrong!). I've replied on the talk page; have you invited Salmanazar? He wrote the article, after all; I wouldn't like to find we'd decided to tear it to shreds or something without him offering an opinion....Xyl 54 (talk)
 * OK I'll drop him a line. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Ashley
Hi, I don't really understand your objection to my additions to Ashley's page, i did'nt write anything that was controversial even more what was written concerning his page is verifiable by looking at the pages history. As for doing the article the wrong way round, I dont see how i can ask for help in adding references without posting the article first. I'm still quite new to wikipedia so please excuse any mistakes. Any help would be gratefully accepted.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, ive read your revisions of Mike Ashley's article. I think that the description of events concerning Ashley at Newcastle are spot on, but I still don't think it accurately describes his "fall from grace" in the eyes of the public. Virtually all of the Newspaper's now consider him a target for ridicule, most poke fun at his inability to run the club without finding himself from "going from one disaster to another". This I feel is important aspect of his image that the article fails to include. cheers --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I will endevour to locate such a reference. One last question though, is there a source that is undesirable? say a certain newspaper?--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask a favour?
I reverted some changes made by User:The Mercenary 73 to the supporters section of Middlesbrough F.C., and a conversation and some reversions to Derek Llambias ensued. Noticed on their talk page that you'd also had discussions with the user, and as I'm literally about to go on holiday, was wondering if you could possibly keep an eye on User talk:Struway2 and deal with any problems the user may have while I'm away. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cyril Spiers
After updating his article I found that according to the sources I could find he played 112 times for Aston Villa. I noticed that he isn't included in the List of Aston Villa F.C. players so I thought I would bring it to your attention so that you could check if the stats were correct and if so add him to the list. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template help
Now fixed; the link was trying to render with the little "external link" icon, which was causing extra whitespace to be inserted. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest actions by blocked editor 76.114.133.44
On July 19, 2009 @ at 21:55 Wikipedia time, you posted a note on this editor’s talk page who operates under this IP address, 76.114.133.44.

The note went like this...“If you continue to remove declined unblock requests and continue to post unblock requests that don't respond to the concerns, then this page will be protected so you cannot edit it for the duration of your block.”

Seeing that it was you who gave him that note, I’m here to let you know that this editor did not take your words into consideration, and has indeed removed decline-unblock requests AND continued to post unblock requests that don't respond to the concerns. He also removed a lot of other content that you had restored initially detailing his rather short tumultuous history, including that particular note you gave to him.

I tried to reason with this editor with my own comment after you left your note. However, he would have none of it, emphatically threw my advices out the window with everything else, and even went the extra mile by defaming some of my own comments. Like I said, I am simply here to report to you what happened. You gave an order to this editor, he did not comply. I think it’s time to carry out your intentions on this editor for not complying with orders. It seems pretty clear that this editor is going to listen to no one, and will form his own rules on editing. That is not the type of editor we want on here, and one that Wikipedia can do without. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New additional incivility issues to this case
There is another editor, IP address 162.6.97.3, whose actions more-or-less echo those of blocked IP editor 76.114.133.44. Identical disruptions on Rebecca Quick’s article, resistance towards administrators, deletion of warnings on his talk page AS WELL AS 76.114.133.44’s talk page, continuations of new unblock-request postings that do not respond to the concerns, and a new violation perhaps...the removal of important information belonging to a publicly runned government facility, the American Red Cross. It has been determined by a few administrators that the editor using IP address 162.6.97.3 is the exact some editor using IP address 76.114.133.44. Once again, I’m here to let you know what’s going on. It seems like this person is using the computer at their place of employment as a sockpuppet to evade the block set at his personal residence. But I’ll leave it up to you to make the final judgment call. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher
I thought I'd probably gone too far but I couldn't resist. I am going to leave the Thatcher article alone but I genuinely believe it has problems of bias and I hope it stays tagged. They were condescending to me too - saying I clearly didn't know about British history and was wasting everybodys time - but this is immature I know. I think the claim that Scargill made no secret of his incendiary  intention to bring the Government down' is dubious and I just think it would have been widely reported in the British press  and the paper may have a website, I did believe the paper existed,  but I dont see how I can check the article that is referenced. Anyway I'm going to leave the article now, I think some of the editors who have been doing a lot on the article should let new blood have a go at it too. Thanks for your temperate warning to me, I' ll look at doing something on other articles that aren't such minefields. Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Woody, can you please tell me how I can see the globe and mails article that quotes Arthur Scargill says he intended to bring the Thatcher government down? Don't you even think it's odd the only reference given to substantiate this claim is outremer, why not from a source from a British paper - and its so incendiary  it would be best to have a quote from Scargill himself to support it, don't you think, not a lame daily express  editorialising style claim.Sayerslle (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked him to provide the quote, on the Thatcher discussion page, which is the appropriate place to ask for it . Its not a question of battling ideologies in my eyes, it's a question of did Arthur Scargill say he intended to bring the Government down or didn't he. If he said it during the Strike, I'd like to see it. Sayerslle (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OWTS
The OWTS logo was deleted by you yesterday, and I have full rights to it, because I am son of one of the co-founders and she gave me permission to it. If there was a problem, could you pleaseexplain it to me so that I can upload it?-- Celtic Cross   18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically I upload it with what permission if:

Thank you-- Celtic Cross   21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The permission was granted like this:
 * Hey mum, can I upload the On With The Show logo on to wikipedia?
 * Yes
 * So wait (I'm quite slow) let's just say, if the OWTS logo belongs to the OWTSProductions team.... which are Heather Aylward and Clare Cid-fuentes . Getting them to give permission via what? Could you just explain that using a basic description?-- Celtic Cross   21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have already had contact with this editor
see my talkpage and this, I'm not getting into an edit war and he seems unable to grasp NPOV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments and those of the above Editor, I in no way wrote any article with a point of view other than the articles author. I have noted your comments and did appreciate your help, but as you said "broad sheets over tabloids" - so i initially used reference to the former, before then using the latter. If I have made a mistake here then I hold my hands up to it, but I see many other editors use tabloids, fanzines and even certain fan sites as a point of reference. As for my so called grasp of NPOV - I think we discussed something similar but I can't remember that we had to portray only those references that had a particular "sugar-coated oppinion". I admit that i'm a supporter of this club and ive noticed many contradictions to many pages that feature the club, mostly from editors who use fanzines as reference. While I am/have tried to use genuinely well known facts then add the references as required, with the utmost aim to provide a accurate unbiased account of the football club.Im sorry if any of this has caused you any trouble.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Cain
Would you fancy weighing in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Woody, I leave it to you to decide whether we need to take the OTRS route for the Cain article. If you're now lifting just the shaving quote from Pergasus, then attributing it to them would obviate the need. Let me know if you want me to go back to him. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

VC allowance
(In response to Bryce's suggestion.)

Regarding this edit and: ''The Australian Government pays a Victoria Cross Allowance to any service person awarded the medal, ... '' This phrase suggests Donaldson is eligible for the allowance, and may well be receiving it. Perhaps a safer statement would be: Under Section 103, Subsection (4), of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Australian Government pays a Victoria Cross Allowance to any service person awarded the medal.? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-wording of the section would perhaps better be discussed on the article's talk page, or with Woody; the primary contributor to the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest it be reworded as I have described above, in order to remove reference to any particular individuals.
 * Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jared C. Monti
Didn't mean to cut you out, never submitted a DYK before. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

James Reiss
Hi Woody,

I just found out that the Wikipedia article about me ("James Reiss") was deleted today by you because of "unambiguous copyright infringement." Nothing in the article about me was copyrighted. I don't understand why you deleted it. Would you please explain. I am at a loss as to what to do. Thanks for your consideration. 68.53.182.7 Reissja (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback about "James Reiss," Woody. The website you mention is my own personal site. I wrote everything in it, and it's copyrighted under my name. Please have a look at the updated site and note the copyright at the bottom of the first and last pages: http://www.jamesreiss.com/ Also, I did not write the article about myself. A colleague, the editor and poet Ron Offen, wrote "James Reiss." He borrowed heavily from my personal home pages, which is OK with me. Why would Wikipedia object to that? Please let me hear from you. Again, thanks. Cheers, Reissja (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for your input about "James Reiss," Woody! I may ask for help once -- or twice -- more. 68.53.182.7 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of WP:CSD for category deletion
WP:CSD,which you used as justification to delete both Category:Associated Production Music and Category:Associated Production Music composers does not cover categories without a parent. While the CfDs for these categories may be leaning towards deletion, the articles should be undeleted so that Wikipedia policy is observed in this matter and the CfD can continue to its conclusion per policy. If CSD G8 did require the deletion of all categories without a parent article with the same title, we would be well on our way to deleting the category system in its entirety, which may have its own benefits. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opined at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_24. Woody (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cain
If you do it now I won't make any more edits until you've finished! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:alt text
Tanks. Gonna have to update the toolbox academy page now that this is in, but with this info it shouldn't be too hard to explain what alt text is or how to use it. :) TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 21:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Ball
I made my attempt at having Ball assessed for A Class after reading the page you recommended. I knew I was still confused when I made the request, but hoped someone would straighten out my attempt and teach me the procedure.

It is disappointing that I so sorely misjudged the quality of the article, because I think Ball's tale is a heart-wrenching one. However, I have no resources to improve the article, and no idea of what is missing.

As it is, I will go back to working on other WWI aviation bio articles.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not my article. I came in late, and merely added a few facts and polished it up. The disappointment comes not from having my ego bruised (I can and have lived with that); it comes from the frustration of seeing a terrific true tale stuck at B Class, just like any article I might create in an evening or two. If Class B is that easily reached, and Class A is virtually unattainable, then why bother doing any additional effort once you have a B Class assessment?

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

VC for Oz
Thanks for the note. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cain Gazettes
I've added a few more search results to the article talk page, in general it's only initial commission and honours that will always use full names, otherwise you're better off searching on service number and/or initials plus surname, because of the scanning and OCR of the resutls, you'll normally get different resulsts from each method. David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly common for someone in the Amry and the RAF to have the same number, I think now there's finally a unified personnel system there's a couple of letters added at the start of the number which means that everyone should now be unique (I think RN and RM have actually finally started listing the number in the gazette as well, those are the worst people to try and track down in historic periods). Prior to about 1922 Army officers didn't have a numebr, and men were mostly numbered within their regiment, which meant you could get many men with the same number, and if posted out of the regiment their number would change.  The numbers for officers (Army and RAF) are only included in gazette entries from the late 30s, prior to that you simply have to follow the rule of searching on initials as well - First World War and earlier it's also worth searching on on forename, middle initial and surname.  One other variant that sometimes turns up results is missing out the space between the last forename and the surname - if the name has got broken over two lines, the search index doens't always seem to break the names properly at that point.  David Underdown (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Hi, I've discovered that user MRSC (contribs) has been moving a load of "Lists of windmills" under WP:UCC. According to WP:PLACE the use of historic counties is correct. I've asked for input at WT:MILLS. What is the next step, can the articles be moved back pending discussion of the subject and consensus being reached? I put many hours work into these lists (not that I claim to WP:OWN them) and I feel that such a drastic action as this should have been discussed first. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thanks Tom, I read it and just had to fix it! Woody (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta
Ta for the unblock, a rather over-enthusisatic colleague was adding to many direct links to TNA content. Hopefully I'll be able to sort it out at source. David Underdown (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to nip it in the bud yesterday, but unfortunately the email I sent wasn't clear enough. David Underdown (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Might as well, I've just never quite got around to asking for them formally. David Underdown (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

warnin'

 * I don't think it's useful/healthy if a friend of a user 'warns' another editor with whom his friend is having an argument - refer it to a third party. I have tried to walk away from the Thatcher page but it drags me back, hopefully I really have had enough now. David said the globe and mails article was easily accessible, and I disputed that, and then he said he'd  said   "if you've tracked the archive down, then its easy to access" which is a kind of petty trap really, but then you're not neutral in judging his words. I have no intention of addressing david again so hopefully thats that. I have got into arguments before, about Bosch's paintings of all things, and was warned so I 'll have to learn but it isn't all my fault,... I'm very quiet in the real world, non-confrontational -, a  bit of a Jungian duality there.Sayerslle (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Battle of Panipat
Hello Woody, You have not responded... [my response in in my talk page]. Awaiting your response.Regards --Shantanu2806 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: DYK
Oh jeez. That wasn't deliberate... I have no idea what happened there. I guess it could have been the "save open tabs" feature of Firefox and I submitted it on that screen when I opened Firefox again. I think that could have done it. Thanks for the spot though.  GARDEN 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for catching that, sorry about that. It was a little hectic for a while. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn `Ali Al Thani
Good morning Woody. Just a quick note to say I've restored Ahmad ibn `Ali Al Thani to its last clean (i.e. non copyright infringing) version. Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!)  08:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not checking the page history, I had got into a mass delete mentality about all those redirects. I have restored the page history up to the copyright infringement, we need to keep the page history for GFDL reasons. Thanks for notifying me. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man, don't get me started on those redirects! What a pain! Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Atsushi Okui
I came across that you had deleted this citing that it is implausible. I had listed miss Okui on the Atsushi disambiguation page, and I am glad I did because this retains information about her. I noticed that you deleted it for the reason of R3, and I believe the person who tagged it was Ryu, who also tagged the Atsushi disambiguation page with the same. He has admitted to simply tagging every single redirect of mine without looking at them. This lack of attention could lead mods to mistakenly think another person had a legitimate reason for deleting this. I can assure you, it is plausible that someone looking for information about Ms Okui would learn something about her by the redirect which previously existed, if you could only restore it. She directed the cinematography for Princess Mononoke, a favourite film. This is why people might look for information about her. I don't currently know if she has done cinematography for other notable works, but this is certainly likely. As such, someone who learns about her from the billing from another work may search for her, and then discover here that she also did Mononoke. In that case, rather than redirecting Mononoke, this learned information would instill courage into someone to initiate the transformation of the redirect into a full-fledged article (as per WP:RFD, it's encouraged) where these 2 and perhaps other works could then be listed. Tyciol (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You said we have the Atsushi disambig page: yes, but we very nearly didn't. Furthermore, information about her could easily be removed from there, as people might cite a lack of notability, and thus they would not be able to find out about her Mononoke work via the namespace, and would need to rely on being able to operate the search function (which some have trouble with). They can use Google, but that may not turn up the wiki entry on Mononoke right away, since she is not the prime subject. Google is a fine tool but it does not always provide properly cited resources for people. There are cases of mistaken data and that's why it would be good if it were present on Wikipedia to be held to higher standards. The criteria you speedily deleted it under are certainly good criteria for deleting, I agree with them too: but the description of the criteria do not match the objections people have with these redirects. If they're going to be tagged for deletion of any kind (speedy or not) they should at least be properly tagged with accurately description deletion statements. 'Implausible' is vague, and it is plausible that someone searching for her would learn about her by finding out about her movie work. If she has other work, we can improve on that, but 'implausible' is not an accurate adjective here. Tyciol (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think the plausibility referred to in policy describes the percentage possibility of placating people's preferences. Something which leads to information about someone is not 'misleading', it does not indicate that it's the only thing she worked on. A lack of information of additional information does not indicate an impossibility of other information. All artists' works do define them as people: obviously it does not wholly define her because she not only has other works, but other qualities as an individual besides her career in cinematography. What is is though, is relevant, much more relevant than an absence of data. It adds to the reader's understanding, and that's enough. If we want to add more understanding, the solution would naturally be to add more data. Tyciol (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My WW I paragraph (or how you dare?)
just kidding. My intension is not to replace the assasination article, nor the causes of the war article, nor the "Black Hand" article. To the contrary I added these 5 lines to give the aspect of the Serbian secret services involvement in the events (which is a major issue) and to draw more attention to the role/activity of the "Black Hand" organization in the WW I, thus the link to the organization. I believe that five lines more about how the war broke is not a issue..But since I am new in the article, may I ask if there is some other reason in not making major editings on it? I noticed that the article is partly protected. If the article is in a phase of a frangiled balance between older editings I would prefered not to destroy it. Or trying in vain to edit it. --Factuarius (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: August is for holidays what are you doing in WP? Take a walk in an island.

Archiving
Have you ever thought of a MiszaBot configuration?  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   17:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I set them up for high profile articles or ones that get lots of messages. If I see a page that contains one or two messages, I leave it. I only manually archive talk pages if there's many messages, in this case I consider setting up MiszaBot. I went through your contributions and noticed a couple of talk pages you've manually archived. I always set it to a week or four day limit. Just some convenience to consider in the future  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN


WP:HYPHEN actually says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ... " Art LaPella (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia
Congratulations and well done on the above, Woody! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC for List of Districts of Sri Lanka
Hi, Woody. I have a question about one of the problems you raised here. The others are fixed, and I'd appreciate it if you could give your views on that one. ≈ Chamal  talk 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Obie moses v
This article was just recreated. ceran thor 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Various
Thanks re HMS Scourge (1794). Also, I see that you have an interest in the Victoria Cross. I was pleased to be able to contribute a photo of the gravestone for Arthur Gurney to his page.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Iskcon youth services Borivali
Dear friend woody i would like to know why my page Iskcon youth services Borivali was being deleted in spite of mentioning the significance of the subject in the article. It was fine since so many days and suddenly its been deleted. I would be highly obliged if you take into your consideration the request to restore it since its a very important article. Kait992004 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: VC topics
OK, yeah, I somewhat realised that and just wanted to clear it up. Anyway, as you said, let's let the people decide :) rst20xx (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: British Armed Forces
Yeah I use wikiEd, I generally click on the spell check button over the text I edit - I must of applied it to the whole article by accident. My mistake, tells me why I need to pay attention QueenCake (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence of villa fans
Oh so we're onto making your own dictionary/usage up as you go along now are we?

"USAGE: The latter should only be used to refer to the second of two items: many people choose to go by hovercraft rather than use the ferry, but I prefer the latter. The last of three or more items can be referred to as the last-named."

So which of these groups of villa thugs is "the latter" referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.254 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oxford English Dictionary, 5. a. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more than two, or at or near the end of a preceding clause or sentence: opposed to former. (emphasis mine). Also, do you really think that insulting the intelligence of a person that you are trying to engage in discussion will somehow advance your cause? Regards, Woody (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Clubs
Re this edit and associated comment: "no need for a list of clubs, could get very long indeed". Indeed it could!

I like the idea that the author tried to limit the list by saying: "more prominent ones include: ... ". However, such a statement could lead to endless debate. Although I'm sorry to see them ALL removed, I'm forced to admit that yours is the only solution I can think of that will work.

It's a shame that expediency, etc., forces us to "the lowest common denominator". But I guess "that's life". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad you agree with my course of action: there really wasn't a way round it. Incidentally do you have any references for that section? It really needs them. I considered removing the whole section but though it better to try and get refs first. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The list you sensibly removed was, (sort of), some "references".
 * "I considered removing the whole section" - I'm glad you didn't - "but though it better to try and get refs first." - I'm glad you did.
 * Off the top of my head, I can't think of any references that wouldn't look like a list of clubs(!) I'll think about it, and if I come up with anything useful, will get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall an article about a club near Albury (not sure if it was Bandiana; it might have been aonther town in the region) which had a nice little summary of the background of the naming convention. I'll see if I can find it. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was easy, it wouldn't be much fun now would it? ;) I understand there will be a list of clubs that could act as references but that is primary sourcing, we need something that describes they why, not the where. That article sounds promising if you can find it; it would be a shame to have to remove it from the page. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as a general principle, "if it was easy, 'they' would have already done it."
 * (One day, I'd like to meet "them". Unlike me, "they" seem to have ALL the answers ... )
 * I started on the job, and have been putting mention of "clubs" on various VCs pages, but 1) I haven't yet identified the (possibly Bandiana) guy, and 2) I have been distracted by the real world and have been using power tools (jack hammers, jack hammers with spade bits, and hammer drills) which, (I'm slightly reticent to admit here), is FAR more "macho" than sitting in front of a computer.
 * I have now returned to my more predictable cyber lifestyle, and will continue my search.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
You guys keep the site running smoothly and dont get thanked enough, so thanks for unprotecting Chronic fatigue syndrome. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HMAS Sydney wreck, 64.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:HMAS Sydney wreck, 64.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 08:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo
Thankyou for your comments at the above FLC - the article has now passed and your assistance was much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article on Richard Kemp
Apologies for undoing your work on this article. I didn't realise until I just checked that you seem to be an official editor on Wikipedia and I am not fully aware of all the various formalities and protocols that seem to be in place. It took me quite a while to construct this page and I did not think it reasonable for just anyone to make substantial deletions like that without out of coutesy at least referring to the creator. As I say I didn't realise you had a formal status, it looked to me like vandalism as you introduced typos and made the page look more untidy by some of the editing. This article was not intended as promotion of Kemp, so if you believe you have removed any suggestions of that then it is a good thing. (I had thought my work on this was objective but obviously not from a third party perspective.) I will not make any further amendments. EUROPECENTRAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europecentral (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I
Hi, you participated in the previous FLC for this article. Can you make sure your issues are resolved and comment at Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive3? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Footie PR
Hi, I noticed your name at Peer review/volunteers and as a WP:FOOTIE member with GA and FA experience I wondered if you could comment on Anglo-Italian Cup at it's peer review. But don't worry if you have other things on. Thanks, <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal - UK or US?
Hi there. I've noticed that you've noticed the recent rename of Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States). This, of course, was done as the plain, un-disambiguated category was being used for the US medal - the UK recipients living in their own disambiguated UK category. So far so good. Just a heads-up that some of your 'cfd fix' edits to various bios might need to be looked at again. I've only looked at Lord Portal's article myself, but in his case he did actually receive the US medal, not the UK. In general, a man who received the DSM as one of the 'other ranks' and then rose up to be a General Officer would be a quite rare thing - my gut feeling is that most of these men did actually receive the US medal.

 X damr  talk 13:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Woody.
Nice to meet you dude, I was encouraged by your work to sort that out, respect to you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock
Woody, WP:DUCK is maiking me think this i.p. is another sock of Mrg1305. EyeSerene blocked a couple of his socks editing similar articles afew hours ago. Can you check to see if this is Mrg? Skinny87 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, have blocked now after looking into it a bit. Always best to give the benefit of the doubt first, then block when it is truly apparent, particularly given the IP's affinity for certain editors. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I only suspected due to some of the i.p.s 'traits' as it were. Thanks for the help, though I doubt this is the last we'll see of him. Can he be range-blocked at all? Skinny87 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at it, but I can see two ranges already both belonging to Telstra. I think we are just going to have to keep watch and block them when they pop-up. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to your watchlist
That rename is something which I have vague regrets about starting. I looked at the GC category, saw there were only about a dozen categories - a reasonable number. I went ahead and started the nomination. Then we came to the VC. It didn't make sense to leave it out, and how much more complicated could it be? Sigh...

To add insult to injury, I noticed today that while Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by name was nominated, I forgot to nominate its contents - all 26 categories. Feel free to jump in ahead of me if you feel you have too much time on your hands! I tried to convince myself that this was valuable and important work, but in the cold light of the next day I'm forced to admit it was an awful lot of effort just to shift the word 'recipients' about a bit!

 X damr  talk 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Flaw in accessdate handling of LondonGazette
When I had a good look today at LondonGazette, I noticed a certain flaw. I checked it in this edit, and the result was even worse than I expected. See for yourself.

You could copy from Cite web. That would solve this problem, and also add some possibilities that you are missing at the moment. BTW, they also have a problem, actually two, but IMHO their problems are minor compaired to what you can gain from copying their code. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall write there about a possible solution for their problems. You might want to check their talkpage, and implement my suggestions, if you like them. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia for wat you have set into movement. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election
Hi ! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers,  iMatthew  talk  at 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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) 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

0–1
What a pleasant surprise to hear from you after all this time ;-) After catching a train at 6am yesterday to ensure connections to get me to Brum in time for kickoff, by the time I got home again and had something to eat and drink, all I wanted to was sleep, not start updating Wikipedia. Added to which, I had a little discussion a few days ago about the need for coloured templates on the derby article which ended in a lack of consensus, so I'm keeping clear of there for a bit :-) Carew coming on against a knackered defence made the difference yesterday, that and Chucho not coming on until too late. Thought Young was very poor, and I'd like Howard Webb to explain why Petrov wasn't even booked for trying to amputate Johnson's lower leg. The fouls and corners figures throw an interesting light on how each team approached the game, pity it's the goals figure that matters...

Thanks for the kind words re St Andrew's :-) I had to rewrite it as most of the previous version was copyvio, just wish I could put the same effort (or any effort at all) into History of BCFC to get the last of the basic articles up to a half-decent standard. Have you considered an article on Wellington Road or whatever your previous ground was called? always surprised me that there wasn't even a stub about a ground that was used for international matches.

End of April, you can gloat again, by which time my lot will probably be on their way back to the lower leagues. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S., as to not filling the ground: at £48 a go for a Sunday lunchtime game on the telly, I'm surprised anybody without a season ticket went at all, derby or no derby... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian Army during World War I
Peer review - yes sorry I was going to ask for one hence the edit I then started tinkering some more and just forgot to remove it. I am still working on it and don't think its ready yet. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

List of AWACS aircraft operators
Hi Woody, as you are a specialist in creating FLs would you mind taking a look over this and give me some recommendations. It is my first FLC and I'm afraid I submitted it a bit prematurely. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Am reviewing it already! ;) Woody (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay Busbee
Hi Woody. I'm a first time Wikipedia editor. I was hoping because I noticed by your bio "Generally, articles within the scope of the football project." that you would be willing to peer review the page I created on sports writer Jay Busbee. If you can, thank you in advance. If you can't, thank you anyway. TimidObserver (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham Derby
Many people would have chosen to undo my contribution, despite it being entirely factual. So thank you for retaining the bulk of my contribution. Other Wikipedians could learn from your diplomacy. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final peer review
Hey man, I saw your name on the list of peer review volunteers, so I wondered if you might give 2009 UEFA Champions League Final a look-over. The PR discussion can be found here. Thanks very much. – PeeJay 09:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806‎ FLC
Thankyou very much for your comments and support at the successful Featured List candidature for Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806. Your participation was much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

VC discussion at MILHIST
Hi Woody,

You may like to weigh in at WT:MILHIST. David Underdown (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross article
Hi Woody! Your name was recommended to me as someone who had worked on many articles related to the Victoria Cross, and who has taken several of them to FL status. I have begun work on getting List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross to FL status (although the main kudos go to AustralianRupert), and opened a peer review at Peer review/List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, especially on issues relating to completeness, photos and the article name. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Megan McArdle
I have nominated Megan McArdle, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Megan McArdle&. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Woody. I saw you recently deleted the Megan McArdle article. I have not been involved in the discussion regarding her article previously, however I noticed it was deleted today. I can attest to the fact that she is a notable blogger who warrants an article. She's one of the most famous economics bloggers in the world. Her footprint on Google is huge. If she doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards it's because the standards themselves are too restrictive. If you meet someone who is well-read and familiar with economics/political blogs they have almost certainly read her blog.

Thanks
woody thanks for all the help it is greatly appreciated Ntma (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Woody (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pitmilly article
Hello Woody,

When you get a chance, I would appreciate your looking at the quality rating of the above article, and possibly revising it. The article has been rated as C on the project's quality scale, which I believe to be low. As the main contributor, I was pretty thorough and I doubt that much more can be added at this time. I have no quibble with the low importance rating.Inver471ness (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. Woody (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody. I thought that B was appropriate. Happy New Year!Inver471ness (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A Prime Handling
Hi Woody,

Can you userfy my article and help me make revisions so that its worthy of being published? I have read through several of the Wikipedia resources relevant to 'Stubs,' have followed a few currently posted examples and STILL my stub was marked for speedy deletion. My stub's purpose is to explain the mystery behind Master Installers, i.e. - why it faded away, which is all part of the current A-Prime Handling's history. Additionally, I am interested in listing products that fall under the 'Material Handling' category and define those as well. My original content is as follows:

A-Prime Handling, Inc Located in the Industrial Park of Avon, MA A-Prime Handling, Inc. (more commonly known as "A-Prime") is a national facility service, sales and installation company for material handling products. It's core business consists of selling, coordinating, delivering, servicing and installing the material handling products that it provides as well as those already owned by its clients. Essentially moving a retailer's products from their mode of delivery to their final destination.


 * History

Founded in 1977, with just two employees, A-Prime Handling, Inc. started as a pallet rack and mezzanine installation company known as Master Installers. It's founder and current company president, Michael Zelman started the company after working in the material handling industry for several years. However, the actual A-Prime Handling, Inc. enterprise did not exist until January 1990 as a result of Michael Zelman's desire to start selling material handling products in addition to simply installing them. Then, because of A-Prime Handling, Inc.'s success and increased recognition within the material handling industry, Michael Zelman decided to consolidate the businesses leaving Master Installers to fade away in 2004 and operate under the A-Prime Handling, Inc. name.

Today, A-Prime Handling, Inc. is a national material handling facility service and product provider, hired by leading retailers within the US, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Material Handling Products
 * Balers
 * Overhead Doors
 * Dock Equipment
 * Conveyors
 * Vertical Lifts
 * Scissor Docks
 * Pallet Racks
 * Mezzanines
 * Handicap & Wheelchair Lifts

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross FLC
Hello! You commented at the peer review for List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross. This list is currently a featured list candidate, with the page located at Featured list candidates/List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross/archive1. Your comments at the peer review were appreciated, and any further comments you have on the FLC would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance if you have the time to drop by! Dana boomer (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Information about Dolakha Town, Nepal
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question)  01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Avram Grant
I'm not going to argue about this edit, but did try to explain to a user who was acting in good faith why this non-story is not currently in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)