• /Archive 1: Sep 2005 – May 2006

You posted this message on my talk page. What are you refering too. I can't tell:-) Sorry if it is something simple, but frankly you have me confused!!!Eagle talk 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, please respond on my talk page, thanks!!!

Is this about an RfA? If so which one? ThanksEagle talk 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that must be it. Sorry for not getting you the first time, but I did not know about whom were you refering to. Thanks for the clarification. Nice to know that someone else is thinking that same thing!Eagle talk 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: I would consider archiving some of the older stuff on this page. It makes it easier on people with slower browsers. (not me, but just thought I would give you the heads up:-). Eagle talk 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. If you don't know how to do this, I would be glad to assist!

OK. Managed to do it! Thanks. Wallie 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you meet the Membership requirements (please read that blurb) then sure - just add your name to the list. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the membership one; no, no committee. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a cricket fan but I don't think Bradman is as well known or as important as many Prime Ministers, Premiers, entertainers etc. The "top" importance level should be left for absolutely essential articles such as states, major cities, etc. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, Wallie, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, Freakofnurture and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in June, and you are more than welcome to take part, by voting or by listing yourself as a candidate.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

--Celestianpower ^háblame 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers for interviening and heloing a bit there. No one else seemed too botherd. I just don't see why I should have to compromise with some little vandal. ANyway, he seems to have gone away. More users like you, etc.--Crestville 13:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lol, if you say so mate. I think I deserved a slap on the wrist and the admins weren't too bad about it. You on the other hand never even sullied your good name in the first place by swearing or fighting, so more credit to you. Cheers for helping me out anyway, much appreciated. I just don't think the lad understands the point of wikipedia--Crestville 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha ha, same here mate. Fight the power etc. We should start our own little wikipedia underground renagade force, like the A-Team. Actually, let's not do that.--Crestville 10:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I wasn't arguing the content of that sentence; I was critiquing the grammar and word placement of your text. But never mind. It's really not that important. As for the Schmeling-Louis fights, well the first once was a lot more interesting than the second.

You were quite right. It was a great period. Thank you. Wallie 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything is fine with me. Thanks for asking. Looks like you're still editing some controversial articles. Jkelly 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One can sometimes wind up attracting the attention of an expert editor at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but not reliably. Posting a request at a WikiProject is more likely to result in expert attention, but relatively few articles have a related WikiProject. One can search the Wikipedia:Categories that the article is in for other articles, find ones that are good, and check their history to look up who has contributed sensibly to related articles. Jkelly 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia talk:Categorization? Jkelly 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. I appreciate your point on my talk page, that people should be given a few works that sum up Beethoven's achievement and to lead them into exploration, but we need a consensus about what those works should be. I think it needs more discussion, because I don't find the list to be quite correct as you left it, and I've explained why on the talk page. I have removed the paragraph altogether for the time being, until agreement can be reached on the Beethoven talk page. Meanwhile, keep up the good work! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all. I "borrowed" it from somewhere else! lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have no doubt that you meant well, but I am afraid you didn't read the discussion. You addressed this to Arniep: "Most importantly, ignore incoming name calling. I is always the name caller at fault, not the callee. ..." - ironically, it was Arniep who offended others. S/he identified a group of editors as "Jews" and made some quite inappropriate (IMO) group allegations. For that, Arniep was criticized by many editors and admins. Just FYI. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say hi, given we are both UFPers... ^_^; --Cat out 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings to you too, CC. From Wallie 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh just noticed.. it was the UN flag.... >_< --Cat out 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your concern. However, you should note that Canada was the only country (with the exception of the United States and Great Britain) that undertook the task of assaulting one of the Normandy breaches, despite its allegiance to the monarchy and Greaet Britain. By the end of the day, it was Canadians (not Americans, the Free French or Britain) that made the furtherest advances into France, before they were driven back by the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. You should also note that during the Battle of Britain, Canada supplied Britain with 106 pilots, the highest number of foreign pilots to serve with the RAF than any other country in the world. By the end of the war, Canada was the fourth largest army in the world, behind Russia, Great Britain and America. If that isn't impressive, I'm not sure what is.

For further corroboration that Canadians were the largest force in the Battle of Britain, I refer you to this site [1] which details the contributions Canadians have made. You listed the salient contributions by Canadians in the Battle of Caen, Juno and Dieppe. I would also like to remind you that Canadians fought in Asia (Hong Kong), Ortona, the Battle of the Scheldt, the Battle of the Atlantic and [[Operation Verrierres Ridge, Operation Totalise, the Falaise Gap, the Netherlands and Holland. Yes we might not have been as powerful as India in terms of man-power, but I do truly think that for a nation of our size (with only around 8 million people) our contributions far exceeded what the world expected of us, especially given the battles Canadians participated in. In fact, throughout the course of the war, Canada was the only non-European and non-American country to have an army under the command of SHAEF (The First Canadian Army).

I've responded on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Jkelly 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He certainly can be off-putting sometimes. It is also simply true that many people argue about trivial issues while there are a great number of more important things that need attention go without it. One cannot, however, force volunteers to take on things that don't interest them. Jkelly 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry Wallie, I'm not one of those guys who are out to get Paris Hilton. You can count on me =). BTW, how have you been? Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been real good, and I'm most certainly the same has been for you! Эйрон Кинни (t) 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a contributor to racehorse articles I would appreciate you taking a look at Category_talk:Racehorses and expressing any views you have regarding Racehorse categories. - Cuddy Wifter 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded to you at Talk:Marco Materazzi#Discussion points about why the general comments by several anonymous/new/random users that have gravitated to this Talk page, are not appropriate for editing or improving the Wikipedia article. This is not meant to be any sort of indictment of you or other users who, through many and long-standing contributions, have demonstrated an interest in improving the encyclopedia, as contrasted with those persons whose sole purpose seems to be in arguing personal opinions rather than creating an encyclopedia article, one of whom was engaging in vandalism. If you are interested in what the above comment by the anonymous user is referring to, see User talk:Centrx#Materazzi et al and User talk:202.141.69.21. —Centrx→talk • 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re that individual. I mentioned before the time of a nutcase he was. He posted this on my talk page tonight.

That is the sort of idiot he is. By the end of his time here he became, deservedly, a laughing stock. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that totally. However Work used his user page to make Libellous comments about a prominent person (the page had to be locked to stop him doing it), launched homophobic and rascist attacks on a lot of people, and abused a range of people, while causing chaos all over the place to articles — he kept moving articles to new names including periods at the end and threw a tantrum when it was pointed out to him that articles on WP never ever ever include a period in the link. Whole pages descended into edit wars, with him against 100% of users. He changed links to add the word British all over the place, and when told to stop used to spit venom at everyone who dared cross him. That sort of stupid comment he posted on my talk page was typical of his behaviour, and is an example of why he is permanently banned from this site. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Wallie! Could you please explain me the reasoning behind this edit of yours? I couldn't figure out what the connection between the village and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, it seems that I failed to notice that it was a redirect from Tatar. Zoya should really be a dab page, not a redirect. I'll see what I can do about this. Thanks, Wallie!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wallie, Back in December you added the line "Interestingly, she is also the aunt of the United States General in the Gulf War Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr." to the Elisabeth Schwarzkopf article. This has been challenged and there is concern that the Associated Press has picked it up as misinformation for a widely distributed obituary. If you by any chance remember it, please add a source for the info. Thanks, BT 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Wallie. I will be on vacation for the next week or so and therefore, unable to tend to the article and resolve this issue with Haber. If you are knowledgeable on the subject and have sources to cite at your disposal, feel free to contribute. Best,--Hohns3 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, my apologies for initially misunderstanding what the debate was about. Please be assured that I am only interested in friendly debate and no more. --Easter Monkey 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I even allowed to vote on own version? --Woogums 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Thank you for your support. --Woogums 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, could you please point me to the exact place of the poll (section etc.) Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, let me address your points bit by bit.

"You mentioned you were German. Do you live in Germany?"

Yes, I do live in Germany. Born in Germany and always lived there (save for 10 months).

"Do you believe that Germany was entirely guilty for the whole war ..."

Germany, represented by its government and military, began the war by invading Poland, it extended it further by invading Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Soviet Russia. For that Germany bears the responsibility. Germany is the chief culprit of the war by far.

However, other nations and there government contributed to that development too:

• The misguided policy behind the Versailles treaty, overly harsh and humiliating.
• The misguided policy in the Thirties, too soft on the Nazi regime, when some statesmen saw the dangers from the beginning. No, I am not talking about Churchill, but Pilsudski and, yes you heard correctly, Mussolini. Also, I am not talking primarily about the actual appeasement policy of Mr Chamberlain, as that already faced the coming war and tried to postpone it until armaments were ready.
• The misguided policies in some states created after the 1st World War regarding their (German but not only German) minorities, especially Czechoslavakia.
• The American withdrawal in 1920.

I could go on but will stop here.

So you see that I do not thinkg that "no other country did any wrong", either leading up to the war and during the war. From the 'jus ad bellum' perspective, Germany's opponents were perfectly in the right, but from the jus in bello' viewpoint they committed several flaws.

However, in regard to the article I must disagree with you. Versailles should be included but not like this. And Germany (not the Germans, you're right on this) started the war: not provoked, not caused as a response, in fact not even triggered, but started. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, you wrote "At least I have learnt something. Nazi seems to be considered OK in Germany. Where I come from, people would not use this word, especially to any German person."

No, it is not considered OK to call someone a Nazi unless he is one. Just because it is used as an insult doesn't make it acceptable.

And what your father did was right, as the German soldier was not ipso facto a Nazi - many were, many weren't. Though the army was of course instrumental in waging the war in the first place, many leading officers were decidedly not Nazis, and some entered the army as a former of "inner emigration". So kudoas to your father.

What does that mean for our article:

• Germany invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.
• Nazi Germany invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.
• The Germans invaded Poland etc. might be okay in a given context but should be avoided.
• The Nazis invaded Poland etc. is unacceptable, as it was the German army.
• The Germany army invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see, Wallie, where that equation is happening in the text, least of all in the proposed intros (presented at the poll). I read Germany and German troops but not Germans or Nazis. If I am missing something please directly point me to the problematic wordings. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, I was wondering what is your evaluation of the government in Germany? You seem to indicate that it was no different from the government in the UK, the US or France. Am I understanding your position correctly? --Habap 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern is that it seems you feel that the German and Japanese governments were no worse that what existed in the democratic countries (or the Soviet Union), which I do not think is the case at all. --Habap 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. I gave an explanation on your page, and it seems you and I now broadly agree. Wallie 09:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not certain. There were exceedingly good reasons to fight against the Germans in WWII - far more than just that they were shooting at you. It was far worse than just a government "trying to impress its people" and control more land and people. Not only did they intend to kill people of certain religions and ethnicities, but they also were unwilling to tolerate dissension or even free discussion. Defeating the Axis removed two of the most vicious and inhumane governments from the globe. I don't sense that you agree with that statement. --Habap 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a very small edit now Ironplay 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a reason to make an exception to 3RR here. He was warned. Ashibaka tock 16:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The New Zealand racehorse Xcellent has been listed for deletion. Some informed comments from thoroughbred enthusiasts would seem to be needed. - Cuddy Wifter 06:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wilkes was strongly suspected being an idiot called User:DW. DW was a menace who reduced whole sections of Wikipedia to chaos, producing edit wars all over the place, creating multiple personae who harrassed and abused users to such an extent that he drove some people off the site altogether. One night alone twenty different articles were simultaneously subject to edit warring by him. Wikipedia had a fight on its hands to drive him off. It got so bad the question of taking an injunction against him was discussed. Users did not know whether he was just mentally unbalanced or just someone enjoying torturing other users for the tell of it. (Apparently it turned out to be the second.) Wilkes probably is that same person. If he was (unfortunately DW existed before current checking facilities existed so we have not got the records to do comparisons) then he is permanently banned from this site by Jimbo Wales. Wilkes behaviour was investigated by the arbcom (before suspicions arose from his behaviour that made people wonder if it was DW). They found his behaviour grossly unacceptable. He was banned from editing certain articles because of the chaos he was creating around him, including what can basically be called wikistalking "opponents" (following them around, editing articles they edit, changing text they have changed, and generally freaking people out — remember some WP editors are children and we have to protect them from all that. I was wikistalked by one person and remember how awful it was). He then created phoney new identities to try to dodge the bans and continued attacking and stalking people. That is why he is banned.

Ultimately where someone wikistalks and harrasses people they have to be gotten off the site for the safety of others, irrespective of the quality of the work. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed your recent changes to this article on area bombing. See discussion on the talk page. While Churchill's role in the area bombing campaign is undeniable I felt your additions used excessive language and exaggerated figures. Discuss on the article's talk page if you wish. Kablammo 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) I read your reply on my talk page; I replied there, and suggest we discuss further on the article's talk page. Kablammo 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) You may be correct that some Churchill partisans will delete or attempt to delete anything critical of him. For my part I will not delete even-handed and properly-sourced criticism (and proper sourcing will remove its absence as a cause for deletion by others). I recognize that whether something is NPOV can itself be sometimes be argued, but we should at least engage and discuss to see if differences can be narrowed if not resolved. Kablammo 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll be happy to work with you on it. I suspect that your knowledge exceeds mine on the air war but I'll help if I can. Other possible subjects: Churchill's impractical schemes (Catherine), propensity to try micromanage the tactics of battles from a distance of hundreds or thousands of miles (Graf Spee, Bismarck), and wishing to wage war by indirection (attempts to enlist support for invading the Balkans). Full disclosure: I think Churchill was a great leader, but he had his faults as a war leader and an even-handed article should discuss those too. The present article does not. Kablammo 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original

They were now dismayed by the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter.

Transformed into over time

Setbacks occurred with the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter

The changes are very small but they make a huge difference Ironplay 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, dont you think the page could be cut down a little? I think that a lot of the stuff on her page could probably be kept to private websites and is un-encyclopedic. --NICK 6 October 2006

Wallie, dont you think the page could be cut down a little? I think that a lot of the stuff on her page could probably be kept to private websites and is un-encyclopedic. --NICK 6 October 2006

Howdie. I've just been reading Desert Orchid, and there's a significant overlap between your original contribution and this fan site[see below]. Is this them copying you, or vice versa?

Btw, you may be interested to know that "Obituary:Desert Orchid" on the BBC Sport site also uses the overlapping material, so it's certainly spread far and wide. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I know. We should be pleased when journalists pick up our work, but sometimes... But the Q with Desert Orchid remains: where did you get the material? Did you write it yourself? It was a long time ago, but you started the article as a single, long post with no structure, which is identical to this website (no really, I've put in the correct url this time...).

This is often a sign that an editor did the dreaded cut'n'paste copyvio, but although this was an early edit you seem like a pretty straight editor. So I thought I'd ask you rather than slapping a huge great tag on the article. But it's kinda important to resolve this, or we will indeed have to blank the article... Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like your opinion about the notion that I was "spamming" you by leaving you a message on your Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Please comment, if you'd like, under my question for the folks at WikiProject Spam. Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. Was I helpful to you at all, or merely an annoyance? --JossBuckle Swami 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... made me spit my coffee on my laptop with laughter. Nice work. Rockpocket 09:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Yoshi? He's lovable too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.135.33 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Obviously,Paris Hilton. LOLReply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:AAlonso publicitystill.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Wallie. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of relinking the WW2 Franklin pic on your user page to the version on Commons, since I am trying to resolve redundancies. Hope this is ok with you! My regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed that you have mentioned this on RHaworth's page. He seems to be setting himself up as some sort of robocop. He tried the same with me too. Wallie 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like being overtechnical at best and Wikilawyering at worst. If it gets to an RFC or anything let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Mario Lanza songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and also Category:Sissel songs. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please get a sense of proportion. Having a category nominated for deletion is not equivalent to declaring war on you - it is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, not a personal attack. I have not used any administrative powers in this debate: anyone can nominate categories for merging, renaming or deletion. I explained my reasons at the debate. If you think the category should be kept, join in the debate, rather than criticize me or make unwarranted accusations about my personal prejudices. I'm not riding roughshod over anyone's views - someone else will decide which side has the better arguments. If the arguments against deletion are stronger, the category will stay.

I nominated the categories because I saw that someone else had nominated Category:Jussi Bjorling songs for rename, and someone made a good point about "songs by opera singer" not being a good idea. I found these and nominated them. If we had a category for everyone who recorded Nessun Dorma, for example, we'd have hundreds of additional categories for very little additional value. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you possibly not put opera singers in this category? It's not one used for opera singers and most of the time it's completely inaccurate anyway. I'd recommend not using it at all. Thanks for your cooperation. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Would you like to put a note about the use of this cat on Opera Project? That way other editors working on opera articles can see your views. BTW Welitsch was not a coloratura, she was a kind of Jugendlich Dramatischer Sopran.-- Kleinzach (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd really appreciate it if you could leave that cat off all opera singers. Either that, or if you feel strongly about it, take it up with the Opera Project. Thanks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Showjumping horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Show jumping horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are a much more experienced WikiPedian than I, so this is a request for advice; I did some mucking around with the categories:

Category:Prima ballerina assolutas,

Category:Prima ballerinas, and

Category:Ballerinas among others.

In the course of which I added ((catmore)) to each category, created a redirect link from:

Prima ballerina assolutas (which did not exist in the plural)

to:

Prima ballerina assoluta etc.

And then removed Prima ballerina assoluta from Category:Prima ballerina assolutas feeling that its presence was redundant given that ((catmore)) causes the follwing to appear at the top of the category: The main article for this category is Prima ballerina assolutas.

While "a foolish consistency" may be "the hobgoblin of little minds", Ralph Waldo Emerson had nothing against consistency that was not foolish, and neither do I.

Currently all the entries in Category:Ballerinas and Category:Prima ballerinas are the names of dancers, as is the case with Category:Prima ballerina assolutas, with the sole exception of the article Prima ballerina assoluta.

If you feel it's important that Prima ballerina assoluta be in Category:Prima ballerina assolutas, I will do the same for Category:Prima ballerinas and Category:Ballerinas. If not I will instead remove Prima ballerina assoluta from Category:Prima ballerina assolutas (which will frankly be less work). Robert Greer (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS Do you attend the ballet; if not, may I ask how you came upon a topic so recherchée as Prima ballerina assoluta?

Nijinsky and Plisetskaya

I am very jealous! Where was it you saw them?

We are in agreement about use of the singular, but I will probably leave it in the plural now that they're all set up that way.

It does seem to be the way that other categories of performers are set up; dancers, actors, etc. Robert Greer (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nijinsky

... was dancing down to 1919, so there must be a few people alive who saw him dance, though how many folks in their 90s are editing on Wikipedia is a good question; but Nureyev wasn't such a bad dancer either! I remain jealously yours, Robert Greer (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Wallie. I meant Nureyev. I mentioned this to Robert. Obviously I would have to be very old to see Nijinsky. Wallie (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upham wasn't British, he was a New Zealander. New Zealanders, being members of the Commonwealth, remain... New Zealanders, they aren't British, nor have they been for a century or so. I'm British and I don't find the term confusing! I think the edit you have made now is correct (adding Commonwealth), if it is indeed factually correct. Stephenjh (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thankyou for taking the comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I have had my eye on the three bar articles and how to improve them for a while. For the moment I am concentrating on the VC recipients by campaign lists. After that, they are my next project. You might be interested in seeing this list of good VC bios that I have collated, mainly ones that have passed FA/A/GA. They reach a neutral tone and language that is not prone to hyberbole, which is what we all have to aim for I think. I understand where you are coming, and in real life we real have forgotten the actions of heroes such as Upham and Chavasse. Personally, I don't feel it is my place to distinguish between recipients and their actions; I don't think I am qualified to. That is not to stop you from having your opinions or from wanting to expand articles in the way that you seem fit. That is the wonder of open-editing, text will always be re-edited mercilessly! Regards. Woody (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Wallie - for more pics of the day [2] [3][4] [5][6] ClemMcGann (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and a video RMS Leinster Sinking Commemoration ClemMcGann (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any mention of him on the website you reference. Also, the webpage itself mentions it's taken from Wikipedia. Salmanazar (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is happening is that other people are changing the article while you are in the middle of editing it. This produces an "edit conflict", which you have to resolve before you can save your changes. When you get an editing conflict, the browser shows you two editor areas, one at the top, showing the version that currently exists, the other at the bottom, showing the version that you created. What you need to do is to edit the top one (often by cutting from the bottom one and pasting into the top one), and then saving it. This is pretty confusing the first few times you do it, but it works. looie496 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To follow up on that, you can only use "undo" if the relevant passage of text has not been changed by anybody else in the meantime. If it has, there are only two things you can do: either revert the whole article back to an earlier version -- which will also lose any editing that anybody else has done in the meantime -- or "undo" the edit by hand. looie496 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And following up yet again, I presume you are aware that other editors are resisting your changes? I strongly suggest that you explain each of your changes in detail on the talk page, and get others to agree to them, before making them. looie496 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the problem is a potentially a little more than that, but these sorts of bugs sometimes occur. But copy and paste moves such as you've tried to make are mandated against (read WP:MOVE) for why). And trying to do this is not the way to fix a potential software problem. Other edits you've made recently have also caused manual of style issues. (removing possessive apostrophes, adding unnecessary capitalisation in text and headers, changing some dates to different dating styles, breaking ship naming conventions, using incorrect tenses, changing some words to less common or clear alternatives and a few other basic grammatical errors). Benea (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure. A lot of the "crimes" you have been accusing me of is because I was trying to fix the article. It sometimes seemed to revert back to very old versions. When I placed a new discription about a ship, I used a sample about another ship. A lot of what you say about capitalisation, dates, etc are about style, as you say. If there is a software problem, I for one am unable to fix it. I have tried to alert this problem on various forums. As you mention, I have probably contravened WP:MOVE, but only to try to move on. The main problem is to fix the erratic behaviour of this article. The "style" and cosmetics can come later. Wallie (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, I'm not accusing you of any crimes but I don't think you understand what the problem is (you've been posting over a wide number of boards asking for someone to explain it) so how do you know this will fix it? Since other people can edit the article it might be the problem is at your end? And by causing more disruption by ignoring basic policy you are only going to add to the mess that already exists. Please read the guidelines and policies before attempting more fixes. And if someone corrects your style, perhaps find out if they are actually right before you mass revert it? If you have specific issues you need help with, I'd be happy to point you to the relevant sections and guidelines. Benea (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, since everyone else who has responded has no problem with the editing of the article, it sounds like the problem could be with your browser. How about following the instructions here, this may solve your problem. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. (wrote this prior to your most recent advice). Possibly the problem is only happening to me. I can't imagine why, though. You are also correct in that I did ask for help, partly as I don't know the procedures in fixing things very well. I do think something is wrong, even if it affects only one user, it is still a bug. As for mass reverting things, on the basis of someone correcting my sytle - I would never ever do that. What happened was that I put in an extra letter 'x' at the top of the article to try to see my user id appearing in the history. The article was changed to some older very than I had edited - possibly due to a bug. Also, my history is not being updated. It still shows this:

(cur) (last) 18:41, 12 November 2008 80.219.0.18 (Talk) (10,147 bytes) (→During World War II) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:40, 12 November 2008 Wallie (Talk | contribs) (9,660 bytes) (→Warships and Troopcarriers sunk involving large loss of life) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:38, 12 November 2008 Wallie (Talk | contribs) (9,664 bytes) (→Warships and Troopcarriers sunk involving large loss of life) (undo) (cur) (last) 13:16, 12 November 2008 ClemMcGann (Talk | contribs) (9,233 bytes) (→Wartime disasters) (undo)

No problem, I misunderstood your intentions with the revert, and thought you had taken issue with the changes I had made. No harm done. It does sound like your browser cache then. I've seen this sort of thing before, and it's pretty frustrating I agree. It usually works itself out in time, the fix I've suggested may speed things up for you. Benea (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. It probably is the cache. I did suspect that something could be going wrong. I may have reverted something you did, but didn't even know you had done anything, as I may have had a completely different view. Anyway, I will try to sort out my cache issues (I hope that is what it is). Thanks. Wallie (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You posted this to 3RR:

If I have put up an edit, and it has been reversed and then reinstated by me, have I in fact reverted the other editor?

Is reverting a revert actually a revert in itself?

Another question. If a user keeps reverting what you say, and an edit war starts, are you both banned? Wallie (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should have gone on the talk page, but since it didn't I've removed it here. The answer is Yes: reverting a revert is a revert. Whether you get blocked or not depends. Edit comments like Please don't revert until this is resolved are generally unhelpful; you could just as well address such comments to yourself. I would quite likely revert anyone saying such a thing on principle. As to my opinion... Spet 11 *is* widely used as a shorthand. Dec 7th isn't. But I'm going to leave the details up to those interested William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my case, I have been engaged in a long fight over the inclusion of the NIU shooting in the 2008 article. Several months ago, I tried to add an image of the event to the 2008 article and argued with editors over its inclusion. Finally, the text entry about the shooting was removed from the 2008 article altogether, which was completley apalling to me, given the magnitude of the event, the high amount of casualties, and the scope of global coverage the incident received. I argued about this and tried to revert their edits but finally gave up, having better things to do with my time than fight over it. However, months later, with newfound sources (two prominent almanacs which included the NIU shooting in its list of noteworthy events in 2008), I tried to put the incident back up there. I was engaged in a healthy discussion on the 2008 talk page with another editor, and CalendarWatcher all of a sudden comes in and declares that there has been a consensus to not include the event and reverted my edits. With only 3 vs. 1 (4 vs. 2, if you include the previous discussion), I don't agree that there has been any consensus reached yet. On the 2008 talk page, I have proposed setting standards regarding school shootings, where only those with 5 deaths or more be included in year articles, so that we don't fight over which shootings to occur and which not. Keep in mind that there are several incidents that had less deaths than this one that are included in their respective year articles. However, CalendarWatcher has yet to partake in the disucssion. It reflects very poorly on him and all of the other editors. I will give it time and hopefully some of the other editors will respond and agree to compromise. But until then, it seems that me and this one incident is being unfairly picked on, while other incidents remain, and there are no standards for what to include and what not to. It appears that you have gotten the third degree as well. If you agree that the NIU shooting is notable, please feel free to revert CalendarWatcher's edits in the 2008 article and partake in the discussion. He or she is not above us in any way and isn't necessarily correct. I believe we have both been editing on Wikipedia longer than CalendarWatcher anyways. Some editors just love to get on their high horse though, try to own articles, assume bad faith, and think they are above others. The only way to counter these injustices is to work together. If you need help in any way as well, let me know. Thanks. Abog (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:British war crimes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love Kiri but I felt I had to mention those reviews as they were mentioned in the fairly brief Bio on her in Grove. If Grove mentioned it then it really should be in the lead.Nrswanson (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well actually I am a fan of all the sopranos you have mentioned. lol But of course I like them for different reasons and in different roles. I don't think anyone sings Mozart better than Kiri and she is also one of my favorite Verdi and Puccini singers. Battle of course is divine in Mozart as well and a great bel canto singer. I personally have always been attracted to her Handel interpretations and it is sad that her career was cut so short. (a fact which has caused some Battle haters as well). I like Netrebko but for some reason have never gotten hooked. She is pleasing to listen to but there is always a singer I like better in the repertoire she does. I much prefer Kiri's and Sill's Violetta over hers for example, but she would still be in my top 5 Violettas. I guess that is the thing with Netrebko for me. Always up there on the list but never at the top. I love Fleming and she is actually the singer that made me first fall in love with opera about ten years ago (in fact I wouldn't be an opera singer today if it weren't for her.) Now that I have more knowledge and a discriminating ear, I am a bit more critical of her mushy diction and at times too free interpretations, but overall I still love to listen to her. She is probably the best Massenet singer out there and wonderful in Czech and Russian opera as well. She is also a great Verdi and Puccini singer (though not as good as Kiri). I think she is Kiri's successor in many ways since their voices remind me of one another. She is also a wonderful person which I can attest to having met her twice. As for Callas... she was a one of a kind both in personality and in voice. Part of what made her such a great performer was that diva confidence she carried with her on stage and into her interpretations. To make Callas humble would have been to steal from her what made her great.Nrswanson (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind insight. It is important to be aware of these things. Wallie (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The allegiance field in ((tl:Infobox military person)) is designed to indicate the countries in whose armed forces a person actually served, rather than their nationality. Arthur Coningham (RAF officer) never served in the Austrlaian armed forces, so to show his allegiance as UK as it previously was was correct, though it was a good call to add NZ. Strictly of course there wasn't really such a thing as Australian nationality when he was born anyway, legally everyone was a British subject. David Underdown (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wallie,

Yeah, I was kinda wondering why I saw "one of five American Commanders in WWII" up there. Though no disrespect to him, but...he's not that very notable, compared to Generals like Patton who pushed across North Africa, Sicily, and France; as well as Bradley who led the 12th Army Group.

Anyways, have a good one!

Rawr,
Tonster (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I see that you've taken out that the Swordfish was considered obselete by 1939, with the rationale that it had only flown for three years. I'm not going to revert the change, but discussion on the article's talkpage would be nice. Anyway, to details: the Swordfish was probably obselete by 1939 despite flying for three years, as equipment can be obselete even before they're finished being produced. See the M22 Locust light tank as an example; even as the tank was being produced, it was discovered that it was obselete, distinctly inferior to existing armoured vehicle designs. But it was still used in 1945, just like the Swordfish. So even something that's obsolete can still be used! If I scared up some references to the Swordfish being obsolete by '39, would you consent to that being readded to the article? Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at the list of British commanders, you will find they have either their highest knighthood or title listed; this is also their highest honour. Blamey's highest honour was the GBE, Morshead's the KCB, which are genuine awards and are not "silly titles". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the UK is not they onl one that uses/used these titles. The knighthoods were part of the honours system of the British Empire, which included all of the Commonwealth nations. These honours also come in military divisions, and are relevant to Australia, and New Zealand, Canada, etc, for that matter. The knighthoods are just as relevant as awards for gallantry and leadership, including the DSO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, I'm going to take this to MILHIST, but I do believe you're in the wrong. Allegiance in an infobox means essentially who the person was fighting for, commanding forces for, and it's not where they were born. Please stop making these reverts and discuss this on the MILHIST talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see [[7]] where this is discussed. You are in the wrong, per the Infobox MoS, andI would ask you again to stop changing allegiance sections in infoboxes. Skinny87 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hate you? Why would I hate you? Crikey, we've never even met :) I'm just following the wikipedia rules, specifically the MILHIST infobox MoS; please don't take it so personally. I just want the most accurate articles there can be. Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, I understand you had relatives there and how that can make you see the battle, but it was a phyrric victory; there's a reason the Fallschirmjaeger called it their 'graveyard'. They suffered their heaviest losses there, persuading Hitler that there was little point in having large-scale airborne operations and thus dooming high-quality elite infantry to act as 'Fire Brigades' on the Eastern Front and as normal infantry on the Western Front and Italy. It's also been debated that Crete, and the entire Greek campaign, forced Hitler to delay Barbarossa by at least a month and divert vital troops for that offensive; more than a few historians think that the delay was enough to allow the Russian winter to set in and stop Barbarossa short of Moscow. There's also the point that Crete, post-battle, gave the Germans little to no strategic value and simply dragged them into a vicious guerilla campaign.

Historical evidence does point towards the result of Phyrric Victory; I'm sorry, but that's how it is. But I'm really not biased, and Britain has suffered defeat - to pick a few examples from the conflict, Dunkirk, Singapore & Malaya, Norway and much of North Africa pre-Montgomery to name just a few. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyedit from MilHist Forum: "..this query resulted from a sole editor bent on a "crusade" to assign allegiance as a factor of nationality. The questionable crusade ended ingloriously with a dispute across forums, talk pages and home pages that ended with the inevitable "block" of the original editor, more for inflammatory or incendiary rebuttals than the actual challenge that had been made as to interpretation of the terminology in the infobox."

Wallie, no offense, I was merely stating the obvious. I cast no aspersions on anyone bent on a "crusade" as I often embark on these myself. The fact that the contretemps ended on a sour note, was as I characterized it, "inevitable" as the issue was no longer the interpretation of "allegiance" but concerns over intemperate language. Once admins get involved, they deal with infractions, not content. I don't think, on the whole, that the original issue will be resolved to your satisfaction, but the topic can be brought up again. I believe that if there are controversial entries in the infobox category on allegiances, perhaps the best recourse is to leave it blank, as it is an optional entry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have made suggestion on AVM Saul on the Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain page - please can you let me know your views via the discussion page? --KizzyB (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have put the Friedlander comment in reply on the disc page. Here it is again with some other ideas which I hope will help. Friedlander's statement "...not one religious community...declared its solidarity with the Jews..." is a factual statement based upon info available when he published in 2007 (he won the Pulitzer Prize for History with that book). Taking into account the other institutions he mentioned, his conclusion continuing in the same para, "Thus Nazi and related anti-Jewish policies could unfold to their most extreme levels without the interference of any major countervailing interests." seems warranted.

He gives documentary evidence supporting his conclusions, i.e. pp. 184-187, 298-303. However, further in the book, he does refer to exceptional examples of church officials who spoke out: i.e. pp. 514-517. These are just a couple examples from the book.

The Holocaust scholar, Yehuda Bauer, in his 1998 speech to the German Bundestag (as an invitee) said, "And what about the churches? The Holocaust has brought to light a profound crisis in Christianity. 1900 years after the Christian Messiah spread the Gospel of love, his own people was murdered by baptized heathen. The churches, insofar as they did not collaborate, kept their silence."

Finally, see The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (2000) p. 112 also for uptodate references.--Joel Mc (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any evidence to back up the above was awarded a Silver star other than your personnel word? I mean the artcle only really talks about the BoB so him being awarded an American medal looks a tad odd since no other information is there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to [[8]] he was awarded something called a 'Silver Cross Virtuti Militari War Order No. 08814, awarded on 23 December 1940.' Is this perhaps where the 'Silver Star' thing is coming from? I doubt an RAF pilot would be awarded an American Silver Star, and I can't find anything referring to Glowacki being awarded one. Skinny87 (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice link Skinny - does appear to lend some supporting material to the article :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I might be mistaken. Wallie (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops, the Virtuti Militari was/is the Polish equivalent of the Victoria Cross, the highest honour for the Polish military. The award has a number of classifications including the Silver Cross. FWiW Bzuk (a Pole, myself)...Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have to be honest. I did mean the US Silver Star. Wallie (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Antoni Glowacki for some changes to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I actually don't have one. In terms of definitions, whichever is used most by scholars for "Holocaust" (all nazi murders, nazi racial murders, or just nazi jewish murders) is fine.

When I see "scholars debate" in a Lede, I can usually smell a nightmare of a Lede that's not properly summarizing an article (usually it's a battle taking place in a Lede with people who barely ever read the actual articles). And that's DEFINITELY the case with Holocaust. The Lede is pretty bad. It needs to just succinctly summarize the article. Maybe a paragraph or two.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Aside from Yad Vashem and Nora Levin's 1968 book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry,19 usage of "holocaust" to describe the Jewish catastrophe during the Third Reich usually appeared in the lower case until the late-1970s, when it was used at all. Neither of the two most important early Holocaust works -- Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 The Final Solution20 and Raul Hilberg's 1961 The Destruction of the European Jews21 -- use the word "Holocaust." Even The Holocaust Kingdom (mentioned above), scarcely uses the word "holocaust" outside of the title, and even then it is not capitalized. In the early seventies, the use of "holocaust" to describe the Jewish catastrophe slowly gained currency. In 1973 New York's Behrman House published Bea Stadtler's The Holocaust: A History of Courage and Resistance. In 1975, Yad Vashem published The Holocaust in Jerusalem, and Black Sparrow Press of Los Angeles published Charles Reznikoff's Holocaust. In 1976 Yad Vashem published Jacob Robinson's The Holocaust: The Nuremberg Evidence, and in 1977, the Catholic Library Association of Haverford, PA, published Harry J. Cargas' The Holocaust: An Annotated Bibliography. Clearly, use of the phrase "the Holocaust" as a label for a collection of Judeo-centric events during the Second World War is due almost exclusively to Jewish sources. Even so, for two decades after the War, "holocaust" was largely used in contexts other than Jewish genocide. "Nuclear holocaust" is perhaps the most commonplace, but other topics merited the "holocaust" label as well. For example, Paul Benzaquin's 1959 book Holocaust (New York: Holt) deals with the devastating 1942 fire at the Cocoanut Grove in Boston, Bernard Lewis's 1961 book, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, New York: Oxford University Press), refers to the friction between the Turks and Armenians as "a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with a terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished,"22 Henry Kane's 1967 book Holocaust (New York: Trident Press) is a collection of detective and mystery stories, and William Hermanns' The Holocaust: From a Survivor of Verdun (New York: Harper & Row) chronicles the Battle of Verdun in 1916 during the First World War. Even many reference works, including encyclopedias and dictionaries, show no listings under "Holocaust" until 1978. For example, the 1976 CBS News Almanac makes passing reference to "the Nazi holocaust that took the lives of six million Jews,"25 while the 1976 Information Please Almanac makes no mention of the Holocaust. Three years later, however, the 1979 edition of the Information Please Almanac not only refers to the Holocaust in its timeline of history, but also explicitly defines the term in a lengthy sidebar (A computerized search shows that no PhD dissertations prior to 1970 used the word "Holocaust" in the title, while between 1970 and 1975 there were 21, with 97 dissertations between 1976 and 1980, and 274 between 1981 and 1985. The turning point was the four-part NBC miniseries "Holocaust," which aired in April of 1978.27 By the next year, Congress had approved plans for the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and from that point on, "holocaust" became "the Holocaust" when describing the fate of the Jews during the Second World War. Ironically, the book Holocaust by author Gerald Green, also published in April 1978, uses the lowercase form "holocaust" in the text.28 After 1978 there was also a change in the way books about the Holocaust are noted in the Library of Congress card catalog. Before 1979, "holocaust" is often shown in lower case in multi-word titles; from 1979 on, "holocaust" is always capitalized, and always refers to the ordeal of the Jews. This latter point is not because of some policy of the Library of Congress, but rather a recognition by authors that "holocaust" has been redefined, and that its use is virtually off limits unless discussing events in the European theater of the Second World War. Shifts such as this in the meanings of words are normal in any living language. Oftentimes the shifts are unintentional, although sometimes groups will intentionally attempt to "high-jack" parts of the language for social or political ends. An example of attempts to intentionally shift the meaning of a word can currently be seen in the efforts by groups other than Jews to use the word "Holocaust" to describe real or imagined past sufferings, a testament to how in less than two decades the phrase "the Holocaust" has become a potent linguistic device to describe the ultimate in victimhood. Before stating a revisionist definition of "Holocaust," it is instructive to look at existing definitions to see where they are defective. Existing definitions may be separated into four main categories: 1) central act of life as we know it, 2) more or less specific claims of extermination in death camps, 3) less specific claims of extermination, and 4) a combination of mistreatment and extermination. In two of these categories, there are examples of the word applying both to Jews alone and to Jews accompanied by non-Jews, with the Jews at the forefront. SOURCE[9]--Woogie10w (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message received and - Thanks. :) Wallie (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wallie, sorry I haven't had time to check up on how the Phar Lap talk page is going - bit stressed right now in regards to work and don't want to chime in as i'll probably have a short fuse. However, I notcied the cite you added for the Australian Citizen test doesn't actually say that Phar Lap is included. I wouldn't be surprised if he is, but I thought i'd let you know in case you stumble upon another article that says it in our search for sources - no biggie, just something to keep in the back of your head. Hope all is well - Matty (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wallie, just so you know, I enjoyed working on the Phar Lap article. I will probably keep my eye on it for awhile. I didn't realize there were these "interesting issues" between Australia and New Zealand (I have no ties to either place). I will be around if you ever need another opinion. Thanks - Josette (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Others' comments It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Is it your usual practice to remove any comments which are critical of your editing. I think it's called censoring. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says this on the Talkpage guidelines. It is quite specific....

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

(others)

On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.

(note: These are only guidelines.)

Wallie (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen many editors remove comments from their talk page, while frowned upon, it seems to be excepted. - Josette (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sound reasonable to me. It probably is frowned upon - some may have an agenda. Wallie (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right about Geneva and Zurich not being capitals, but wrong about Cardiff and Edinburgh ([10] [11]). If you're going to assert the latter two places are not national capitals, you'll have to provide a source. Also, please familiarise yourself with WP:RS, as you seem to think that wikipedia constitutes a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, it's good that someone's taking on the responsibility of making the assessment as little more consistent, but wikipedia's list of capitals should only be used as a guide, not a definitive list. The article you've been linking to isn't even sourced. I have provided sources that Edinburgh and Cardiff are capital cities. The inaccuracy in the list probably arises from the debate over whether England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are countries as I notice that only the UK is on the list you've been linking to. Nev1 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty much correct, but I get the impression you don't like the system because you think there'll be too many "high" importance articles. WP:CITIES isn't (despite its title), just about cities; from the project's declaration of scope: ""Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods", hence the lower levels of importance will be populated by the towns, villages, hamlets etc. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I agree that we're going a bit overboard here. The sub-articles for Mexico, the U.S., and Canada are needed, in my opinion, but the rest are of little use at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Wallie (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wallie

I have noticed you have been raising a certain point in several places around Wikipedia. I just thought to respond to it. You seem to be annoyed that the article on the 1918 flu pandemic is much more underdeveloped than the one on the outbreak currently underway. For example, you said "60 million died in the 1918 episode. This did not rate a large Wikipedia article. If there are only thousands killed, we get off quite lightly. 60 million is also a lot of people, is it not?". I would like to say that I agree the article on the 1918 flu pandemic should be much better. However, from your arguments I have inferred, and I apologize if I am wrong, that you believe the Wikipedia community has made a conscious decision not to focus on the 1918 flu pandemic as much out of a belief that it is less important than what is happening right now. I can assure you that is not true. Wikipedia articles arguably generally grow in direct proportion to the amount of interest Wikipedia editors have in the subject, and there is less interest in the 1918 flu pandemic than the outbreak. I am not saying it is right, only that is what has happened. I invite you to improve the 1918 flu pandemic article yourself; you might find your job easier with that than working on the outbreak article, since it is much harder to make radical changes to the outbreak article at the moment than to the other one. I hope this addresses your concern, and thank you for reading. Cordovao (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Harness Horse of the Year, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It had a thoroughbred racing template in a standardbred article. I thought this incorrect and removed it. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would have been okay if you had just removed that template leaving an adequate reason why in the edit summary, but you blanked the whole page and removed more then just the thoroughbred racing template without leaving a summary. If removing the rest of the content was a mistake, then don't worry about it but do be more careful next time. Feel free to remove the racing the template again if it was placed in what you believe to be in error, but please leave an explanation why in the summary. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I will do it. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wallie, would you please stop creating stub articles on horses which do not provide any references to support their claim for notability. You obviously have the references to hand in order to create the article so for an editor of your experience to create articles without citing sources is downright unhelpful. It takes much more effort for someone else to try and track down references. Even in cases where you have expanded an article, e.g. Indianapolis (horse), what would bew good references have been given as external links instead. dramatic (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not have to track down any references. I have suppied "external links". The articles have to start somewhere. Otherwise there will be nothing there. Wallie (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I should not have to roll back your talk page to make a reply to a message you left 15 minutes ago. Your censorship (sorry, I can't think of any other word for it) of your talk page is also poor wikiquette. I'm going to save this now and then compose the rest of my reply. dramatic (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, the spages I am referring to are Easton Light, Delightful Lady, Ordeal (horse), Highland Fling (horse), Petite Evander, Great Evander, Harold Logan, Johnny Globe, Caduceus (horse) and more, all in the space of 24 hours. None have references, even though you have added a blank reference section and a blank external links section. Yet all have a fully completed infobox, the information in which you must have taken from some book (unless you are a polymath with photographic recall, which I don't think is considered a Reliable Source). Is it too much to ask you to put at least one inline citation in the prose or at the foot of the infobox template (if it's any good it should have a parameter for a source - the cricketer and rugby player ones do)? Another example is the extensive description of the 1960 Interdominion final in Caduceus (horse) - there must have been a source for a description of that detail.

I am not calling for deletion of these articles. They almost all make a clear claim for notability (winning major races, hall of fame etc.), but one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that claims not supported by reliable sources are not admissible content and can be removed. (yes, the {[tl|references)) template does mention deletion, but only as a likely consequence. If I had thought the articles needed deletion I would have nominated them. You have probably noticed that I have nominated Denis Nyhan for deletion, because you have not given any reason why he, personally, was notable in the article (e.g. was he ever driver of the year?). As to your comment on Flashing Red, no, I don't know that he is notable because I do not follow NZ/Australian racing, and neither do the vast majority of people reading Wikipedia. If he has done what the article says he has, there must be sources somewhere. If there aren't, he simply cannot be on Wikipedia. (BTW, the last sentence in that article is, um, one of the most unencyclopedic I have seen). Were you aware that for living people there is [[12]] about automatically deleting unreferenced articles after a relatively short period of time. The danger of unproven claims is taken that seriously.

Finally, if you were a newer editor, I would have taken more of a mentorship approach, but you have been around here long enough, and in enough projects, to know better. I know that it took me a while to grasp the principle of putting nothing in without sourcing, and there's a ton of stuff that I could have added to W but haven't because I haven't sat down and found a proper source for "stuff that I know". I also have about 3 years work addign sources to all the existing unsourced material in the series 1801 in New Zealand - 2009 in New Zealand! I beleive that you are capable of some first class work if only you would slow down a bit and be a bit more thorough.dramatic (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(copied so that the conversation has continuity) OK. I will go through the list and make sure there is a reason why they are notable to stop the (nearly automatic) deletion. I will start on Denis Nyhan. I guess if he won x number of major races, that would qualify him as being notable. I have updated many of the horses now, like Highland Fling (horse). Have a look at the extra I put in. Is that sufficient? I will also do the same for all horses in these big races, esp the Auckland and NZ cups, so they pass these criteria. Wallie (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a start, but I really think the infobox stuff on pedigree needs a source for Verafiability too.dramatic (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regard to your recent creating and editing of info boxes, it would be appreciated if you would ensure that they conply with the Wiki policy of WP:ALLCAPS. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should we delete the brief mention of kidnapping of Polish children? On Wikipedia the kidnapping of Polish children is included with the Holocaust read-History of children in the Holocaust----Woogie10w (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK - will discuss on the artcle's talk page. Wallie (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi there, I was looking for people interested in athletics to register support in starting an Athletics WikiProject and saw Jesse Owens was listed on your major articles contributions. However, your three sole edits to the article seem minor. Am I missing something here? Do you have a separate account? Would you still be interested in the project? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 21:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you peek at Kaimanawa horses. The article needs photos and some general (NPOV) help. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 04:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

• The use of italics in article titles
• Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
• Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am posting this as you have made a substantial number of edits to the above. I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/GA1. I have de-listed the article. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the article may be improved and re-nominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important! - Round up what few ballet enthusiasts you know on Wikipedia and get them to vote on the proposed merging of the Ondine articles that would see the article about Frederick Ashton's production of the actual ballet, being merged into one about the music.

See here: - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Straw_Poll

And please vote to oppose this change, as this music would not have been written had it not been for Ashton's ballet!!!

Thank You

Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The December 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) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wallie! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,889 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the list:

1. Saeed bin Maktoum al Maktoum - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Yvette Chauviré - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Anthony Butt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'm posting this notice here since you're listed as a member of the Shipwrecks project. A merge proposal has been suggested on the project talk page here. Suggestions and ideas are welcome. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The January 2010 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) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:All Blacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:New Zealand national rugby union team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The March 2010 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) 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently an issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing that as a member you might wish to read and vote on. Handicapper (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, I read on the WikiProject United States History page that you are knowledgeable in the American Civil War. Well, I need help proving that the Battle of Gettysburg was indeed a decisive victory for the Union (A user named Hlj refuses to except that). Could you help me please? Reply on my talk page. Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly my point! So could you help me argue against Hlj on the Battle of Gettysburg talk page? Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2010 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) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only time the LRDG was composed mainly of New Zealand troops was at its foundation when it was known as the Long Range Patrol - the unit's name was changed to the LRDG when Patrol units from other nationalities were added; it should be noted that the New Zealanders were highly respected both inside and outside of the LRDG.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2010 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) 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I call your attention to a proposal at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13 to delete Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season? — Robert Greer (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rasta Thomas will turn 30 years old on July 18, 2011, and I would LOVE for him to be the featured article of the day on that day. I'm calling foryou your help to join in on taking this article to greatness, and giving Rasta a little love.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article North Island Challenge Stakes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article claims notability but fails to actually establish it with sources. Has been an unsourced sub-stub for over five years.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the project and please let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the ((Autopatrolled)) top icon and/or the ((User wikipedia/autopatrolled)) userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wallie. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi Wallie, A group of us were looking at getting the New Zealand article featured and we have a query about the File:WGNT Cenotaph 07 ANZAC.jpg image that you added. You placed hidden text there at the time saying it is not the National War Memorial. I can't find anywhere that states it is the National Memorial and am assuming you just placed the text as a preventative measure or the issue has now been resolved. If you have no objections I will remove the hidden text as I fear it could create confusion come review. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you 100%, Wallie (or is it "Walther"?), that in articles about accomplished musicians like Hilary Hahn and Sarah Chang we don't need fawning fans to insert every little adoring adjective that they can think of, to put their idol on a pedestal. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. These talented musicians don't need Wikipedia to promote their careers, since they have already taken off.

I said as much in my "talk add" to 72.211.137.231, the guy or gal who wanted to add "virtuoso" to the lede. It does not belong there, nor anywhere else in the article, IMHO, since this trite expression might just be applied to boost someone who is not a virtuoso. I could say I am a "virtuoso" and no one would believe me! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject United States History might be inactive or semiactive and that it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States.

I have started a discussion and will contact each of the active members for their comments and input on the suggestion. Please take a moment and add your comments to the discussion or feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Coudl you pleae tell me if there was an article on Village Kid? I thought that there was, but if so it has disappeared. Regards. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns what can be in the introduction and what not, should it be shortened and are the chapters in the right order? At the Wagner discussion page there is Edit War solution topic and at the end of it some courses of action that I was requested to list. Please help, it seems that the few old hags (me included) don't want to come to any conclusion. Just take a fast look. Thank you User:Major Torp (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.Reply[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

I'm not Supporting Dongiago, I was merely trying to help with your misunderstanding.

Original research does not mean lying.

Original research emans any uncited material. For instance, if you had been on the set of the film and taken blood tests on all the cameramen and discovered that 95% of them were blood type O-, you still couldn't put that true information on wikipedia without a source.

See WP:NOR for Wiki's own discussion of why No Original Research is allowed and why that doesn't mean you are lying.

WP:V is a good page for understanding what counts as a reliable source and why it matters.

SPACKlick (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found other sources and your original source. Have placed information in text with inline citation. SPACKlick (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

((subst:copyvionote|File:Syt1.jpg)) Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference