Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:19, 30 January 2007

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages'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're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most 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, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki project Aircraft

Welcome to wiki project aircraft! We dont have a cool welcome template yet but wanted to welcome you anyways. If you need help with anything, feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - Air Force Medal of Honor corrections

Thanks for catching the typos/mistakes I made and adding some photographs for the Air Force recipients. I was going through creating pages for the Army and Air Force guys for the Korean War, since most of them were red linked. Somebody had done it for the Navy and Marines, but most Army and Air Force didn't have pages. I finally got the pages created, but I'm sure I made numerous typos and other mistakes here and there. wbfergus 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

B-17H

I believe you are referring to this edit. Unlike the image that replaced it, I felt that the original picture did not add to the article; it showed very little detail, and nothing that showed its difference from other variations. Not every picture is deserving of inclusion in the article, there are many B-17 related pictures at commons:B-17 Flying Fortress, but most of them are not illustrative enough to be useful. To quote AndyZ's suggestions for featured article candidates, "While images are strongly recommended for articles, do not cause an article to overflow with too many, which can be disruptive and repetitive; select the best, most relevant, most important, and most informative/educational images.". I'll of course leave the image in for now, but may take it, and others, out later if it improves the article. Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment offended you, but just remember, nobody owns articles here, Misplaced Pages has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit, and we are all working to make articles better. This sometimes involves removing as well as adding to articles. As long as we all work for the greater good (which means sometimes ignoring our personal preferences) it'll all work out. Just remember: Assume good faith.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Do not move pages by simply copying the text and redirecting the old page. Use the move tab in order to preserve the page history. —Centrx→talk • 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Striptease and Burlesque

Please put your comments about this subject on talk page and refrain from bandying personal insults. Also I didn't make any claims in the article, only in my reasons for deleting the POV material. The sentence I deleted was POV pure and simple and also untrue, and I think we are allowed to delete POV and untrue claims. To repeat: I have added nothing to the article, just deleted a POV and untrue statement that asserted that striptease isn't theatre, despite the fact that any day of the week you and I could check into a theatre in Las Vegas and watch strippers. Colin4C 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your threat: "If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)" I say go for it, you are clearly deleting valid information on the Burlesque site. Let me further remind you that the defition on vandalism.

"willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others."

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

--Signaleer 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not a threat. You have breached wikipedia guidelines by referring to me as a vandal, when all I did was a reasonable edit, giving my reasons in the talk page, deleting info which is both POV and false. Deleting false and POV info is not vandalism according to wikipedia guidelines. Colin4C 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reasonable nor a credible edit, your explanation for deletion has personal POV implications. Please refer to your own edits. You are helping in the "destruction of property of others" so according to my own personal point of view, you are a vandal in my eyes. --Signaleer 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Striptease and Burlesque

I have deleted the following, cos it is POV, and unreferenced and true:

The striptease quotient of Burlesque is not akin to modern day strippers; one is theatre, the other is not.

Who is to say that striptease shows are not theatre? What about the shows at Las Vegas, for instance, are they not theatre? Also the famous striptease acts at The Windmill Theatre, in London WERE theatre. There is even a Film about striptease occuring in a theatre called Mrs Henderson Presents.

In reference to your deletion, put Burlesque into context. Are you saying that the act of burlesque in the 1800s or even early 1900s was just strippers? I think not, vauldville and burlesque was very much theatre, therefore, I will add the comment back on to the page. Please do not vandalise the site and keep deleting valid information. Thanks --Signaleer 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your threat: "If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)" I say go for it, you are clearly deleting valid information on the Burlesque site. Let me further remind you that the defition on vandalism.

"willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others."

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

--Signaleer 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you keep calling me a vandal I will report you to the admins for personal abuse, which is agaist wikipedia guidelines. What you call 'valid information' is both POV and false. The Windmill Theatre, London was and still is a 'theatre' which features strippers. That is just one example, so saying that striptease 'is not theatre' is not just POV - it is is false. I have every right to delete false and POV info in wikipedia articles: that is not 'vandalism' and you should know it. Your personal abuse of me also breaches wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks for the definition of 'vandal': as I have not engaged in wilful and wanton of the property of others, but have rather given a reasoned edit, removing info which is both POV and false, and have discussed by reasons in the Talk page I am not a vandal. That is just a malicious smear by you. Colin4C 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. Burlesque and tableaux girlie shows conformed to the legal situation at the time, and in their particular locale. That meant they had to titillate through suggestion, and (indeed) theatre. The phrase Colin appears to object to is simply perjurative towards modern strippers. Yes, you might be right about the sleazier sort of dive, but Colin does have a point with regard to theatres that continue the Burlesque and Vaudeville traditions, but are now allowed to go much further; examples that spring to mind are the Windmill and Moulin Rouge. I don't think the sentence would be missed, it adds nothing. Looking at the Burlesque link at the bottom of the article (a not particularly helpful external link), their new burlesque shows include strippers, who disrobe to the buff. I think if Signaleer were to rephrase so the sentence is not derogative, that would be acceptable to all. If you follow the link to striptease, you will also see examples claiming to be modern burlesque shows.

I'd also suggest you both cool down a little! Kbthompson 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation that the user Colin4C used was a poor explanation for removing the comment. On the history tab of Burlesque the reason for the removal of the sentence was:

"(cur) (last) 12:28, 31 December 2006 Colin4C (Talk | contribs) (Deleted somewhat POV distinction between striptease and burlesque, in my experience most burlesque performers are also 'ordinary strippers' and not ashamed of the fact)"

So you're saying that your personal experience is valid enough to remove what I have said, your point of view and personal bias, is more valid than what the majority think--what I said in the first place. I think not.

If you Kbthompson, would like to edit the sentence so as not to offend the angry and immature Colin4C, by all means, please have at it. --Signaleer 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You (Signaleer) have unjustifiably called me a vandal (several times), 'angry' 'immature' etc etc. I have not responded in kind and have treated you with courtesy and respect. So come to your own conclusion as to who has 'thrown the toys out of the pram'. You are breaching wikipedia guidelines against personal abuse of other editors. Colin4C 17:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you want to report me, go for it. If you want to take things personal and go through the Wikipiedia "authorities" then by all means, you have that right as a user to exercise those privillages. --Signaleer 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A article you might be interested in

Have you seen the Windmill Theatre article. Its about a theatre which features strippers. Colin4C 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With reference to your latest message, by objection to the passage in the article wasn't that 'burlesque' and striptease' can in certain circumstances refer to different things, but to the supposed grounds of the distinction: that burlesque was theatre and striptease wasn't. Thus I have pointed you to a very famous London theatre, i.e. the Windmill, which has been in operation since before WW2 and which features strippers. Ergo strippers do appear in theatres and ergo that is not the grounds of any putative distinction between striptease and burlesque. Also burlesque does not only happen in theatres. A friend of mine has her own burlesque troupe: called 'The Belles of Shoreditch' who mostly perform in private clubs. Colin4C 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of B-36

Contrary to what you may think, the photograph provided by the United States Air Force is a better and higher quality photograph than the one that you took yourself. I won't stop you from trying to add it back but please consider that your camera and photograph is inferior to the one provided by the USAF. --Signaleer 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I examined both photographs in detail, and found that mine had better color, and was sharper. Since I was physically there last week, I can tell you that the shade of grey of the fuselage in my photo was more representative of the actual subject. It also better showed the detail of the fuselage. I have no doubt that the AF uses better equipment than mine, I have a Nikon D50 and most official USAF photographers use a Nikon D2X, however that photograph had no metadata (exif) that would indicate details like the equipment, exposure and focal length. How do you know what equipment was used in the AF photo? I took several images of the B-36 and felt that that one best showed the detail of the nose area. However, the Nikon D50 uses Nikkor lenses and produces a sufficient quality photograph for enlargments to 8X10 or even 16X20. I also used a tripod to get an optimal image. What equipment would you recommend that I use? --rogerd 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my message, but I see that you reverted my change with no edit summary, despite your earlier statement that you "won't stop you from trying to add it back" --rogerd 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your deal, here? I have tried to have conversation with you about these images, but you, despite your earlier statement, keep changing it back. Just because someone from the USAF took the photo, it doesn't make it better, which seems to be your stand. --rogerd 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with Rogerd here. I was a volunteer at the NMUSAF, in the cold war gallery which houses the B-36, so seeing it 8 hours a month I feel makes me qualified to make that assessment.Patrick Berry 14:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The minor edit duel that you and rogerd have going on in Convair B-36 should have been resolved by the consensus on the talk page. Instead of continually reverting eachother, I would suggest trying to resolve your dispute --Patrick Berry 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

'edit wars (although highly discouraged) is not considered vandalism and does not violate Wiki terms and conditions' If you read my above comment, you will see that I didn't suggest either of those to be true. I was simply suggesting that you stop reverting the picture contrary to consensus or try to settle your dispute in an adult manner. Thank you for taking the time to respond, but you are just avoiding the subject, so I will stop bothering you about it. Patrick Berry 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image downloads

I don't understand the naming convention that you are using when you upload images. It would be better if the image name had something to do with the subject. It would make it easier to determine what the image was about. Also, consider when uploading free images, uploading them to commons, so that other language editions of wikipedia can use them. --rogerd 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

General Petraeus

You misunderstood what I stated in the article edit. I was, in fact, the one who placed the link there. My objection and edit had nothing to do with Petraeus' posting; rather, the fact that someone typed that Petraeus was being promoted to General, of which there is no indication at this time. The fact Casey was a General while commanding MNF-I has no bearing on Petraeus posting there as the man may remain a Lieutenant General for sometime. I was asking for the source on the promotion of rank, not the posting as Commander, MNF-I.--SOCL 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the edit I made has not been reverted, so the point remains moot.--SOCL 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I may not have been clear in what I was trying to communicate.--SOCL 21:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying based on the NYTimes report; however, the story does not explicitly state that he will be promoted with a fourth-star, rather, it states what is expected. Even so, I suppose the implication is enough to report. Thank you for showing me that.--SOCL 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Signaleer, Curious on your Washington Post entry in "External links". You parenthetically note it as January 6. I see the URL itself clearly is ...2007/01/06... However, the article was printed in the Sunday, 07 Jan, 2007 Washington Post, and the byline on the online article (the link you included) says January 7th. Small detail, but at first gave me the impression that there were two articles, the Jan 6 and Jan 7; but they are the same. Should we change that "January 6" to "January 7" to avoid the confusion? - Thaimoss 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

General Casey

I put down that NPR has been reporting it all day. I'm not sure if you're questioning this because of what I put down on the Petraeus article, but it was not personal at all and was, in fact, not even aimed at you as I had no idea who had typed the promotion bit. As for the future posting of General Casey, feel free to remove it as I cannot find an Internet source; rather, all I have heard it from has been NPR, CNN, and even BBC, but all radio and television news.--SOCL 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Snow himself has stated Casey's future posting as Chief of Staff. Turn on the news because it's happening (and being repeated) as we speak. In any event: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/05/friday/index.html.--SOCL 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I never stated Tony Snow stated thus in that same CNN article; however, as I saw on the Situation Room today, Tony Snow was shown (not just quoted) as saying thus. In any event, if you insist: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070105-7.html. Read the first paragraph, please. I'll be more than happy to link this to the Casey article.--SOCL 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

P-38

Save the rhetoric. I was just carrying out standard WP:Air fancruft removal. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pic sizing

Please see User talk:Ericg#Hardcoding of pics/sizing and User talk:Ericg#Image size for detailed discussions on why image sizing it to be used sparingly. Note that I was on the losing end of the first discussion. Additionaly, the CH-53 pic is far too large for 250px or greater. Please leave it at 200px. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on re-adding pic sizings? Please read the links above, which explain why they aren't necessary except in a few cases. - BillCJ 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are reverting contrary to guidelines. Pic-sizing is a user setting. By default, it is set at 180px (absurdly low); each user can change it to their preferences. If someone has their preferences set hight or lower than 250px, you are forcing them to view the pics at 250px, which they may not want. Actually, the only person who I argued with on this topic was Ericg, and he won. He also won with the others who discussed this, because his view on this is the right one according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. - BillCJ 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 8 2007 to CH-53 Sea Stallion

C-54 image sizes

I'm curious as to why you've reverted the edits of two other users regarding the image sizes. As they noted, the Manual of Style is pretty explicit about not specifying an image size. Are you aware that each user can specify the default size that they want images to be displayed as and that specifying an image size overrides that preference? Could you explain your rationale on the C-54 talk page, so everyone can see it and you won't have to revert another edit? Thanks. Dabarkey 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 13:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, the image isn't a work of the US Federal Government. I have removed the PD-USGov tag. You can claim fair use by using a fair use tag and writing a rationale, but that might only last for as long as the museum is closed, because it could be replaceable then (you should mention this in the rationale). Thank you for providing the source. --MECU≈talk 13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image edit warring

It seems that there is no consensus for the change to the image you prefer for the Convair B-36 and I have reverted your last change back to the consensus version. Please use the talk pages to try and reach a soluition to this issue before you revert back to your preferred image. Thanks.--MONGO 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jacqueline Cochran

Nice addition to the page, but you didn't cite any sources. Please provide references for all that great info. Akradecki 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image resizing

Please don't go and resize image thumbs to a specific pixel size (except the lead, of course). The Manual of Style governs on this. Thanks! Akradecki 02:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to other's userpages

Please do not introduce any form of vandalism to the userpages of other users. Thank you.. I know you're frustrated over your disagreement with BillCJ, but that doesn't justify vandalism. Please try to remain civil. Thanks. Akradecki 03:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User claims to be adult, this is questionable.

Dude, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.... If you're really in the military and are representative of military personel no wonder people have a poor opnion of the US military. 70.146.139.230 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice

You have been antagonizing a lot of fellow editors within WP:Air. This can make it very difficult for you to push through new ideas or to reach common ground on issues (while Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, community consensus always prevails if you piss off enough people, which you have been doing). Please remain civil and follow the Manual of Style guidelines for pages, and you will have a much better and more productive Misplaced Pages experience.

Also please read Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. - Emt147 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Truce

I would like to have a truce with you, but I can't accept your terms. Everyone should feel free to contribute anywhere on Misplaced Pages they chose, including you and I.

How about this for a truce: If you make an edit I disagree with, I will post on that page's discussing page first what I disagree with, and we can try to work out our diffences without engaging in an revert war, and vice versa. We won't change the edit in dispute until there's some sort of consensus on the page as to what to do, whether it goes the way we would like it our not.

This is how I usually interact with other users on Wiki. There are a number of editors I co-operate with on editing certain articles. Almost all of those co-operations began with disagreements over edits beforehand, yet we have still learned to work together civily. Ido not always get my way in disputes, but after I've had my say, if I'm unable to change opinion, I haccept the consensus. I don't always like it, but that's the way Misplaced Pages works.

However, if you continue to behave in a childish manner, such as vandalizing user pages, and making unconstructive edits to articles in order to make someone mad, then you ultimately will be making things hard on yourself.

There are people on Misplaced Pages who are not interested in making helpful contributions to Misplaced Pages. At least 30-40% of my edits each day are spent reverting vandals and crufters. As you know, Misplaced Pages policy is to tolerate such morons. Seriously, if you have the time to add thumb sizings to a bunch of helicopter pages just to tick someone off, maybe you could direct your energies to making the lives of vandals and crufters miserable. Now THAT would really be fun, only I don't have the time or patience to keep at it. Misplaced Pages probably won't like it, but a lot of us serious editors would be happy see someone take on the vandals. And you seem devious enough to do it, and you wouldn't care what the WIki powers thought about it either. Just a thought.

- BillCJ 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WASP article

With all due respect, there were hundreds of WASPs (I personally know one, but she's not notable enough to be added. The point of having the list is to document notable WASPs. If there's no wikiarticle establishing notability, and sources haven't been cited in the article establishing notability, then there's no point in having them on the list. Complying with WP's notability guidelines is not trolling! Akradecki 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Misplaced Pages policy is very clear: it's up to the person adding the material to establish notability with cites. Without that, Misplaced Pages policy says that the material not so documented should be removed. This isn't trolling, this is simply following policy. Akradecki 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the official policy (notice that it's policy, not just a guideline):

You've now been officially apprised of the policy. Further reverting will be considered vandalism. Akradecki 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thumb sizes

You've been notified numerous times that the MOS states that thumbs should not be sized. There's good technical reason for this, as thumbs are a user preferences feature. If you want thumbs at 250 pixel, go to your preferences, the files tab, and set it there. Don't violate policy and force your views on others. Any further edits such as what you did to XB-28 Dragon will be considered vandalism. Akradecki 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. . The image on the P-51 page is there by consensus, and persistently removing it against consensus is considered vandalism. Akradecki 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)