User talk:Askari Mark

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

de-1Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.

es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

fr-0Cet utilisateur ne comprend pas le français ou seulement avec des difficultés notables.

ru-0Этот участник не понимает русский язык.

Search user languages

This user is a participant in WikiProject Aviation.

This user is a member of WikiProject Aircraft.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Military history.

This user is a member of the Military aviation task force
of WikiProject Military history.

File:Norwegian 1 kr adverse.jpg

This user is a member of WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's always a pleasure to have another editor join—we can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia: Our most important principles and philosophies. Or if you're interested in specific polices, see our Policies and Guidelines page.
• Open tasks: These are important things that aren't getting done. We need your help with them.
• Tutorial: What you need to know about editing pages.
• Test area: If you need to test an edit but don't want to perform the test on an article.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk, or leave me a note on my talk page.
• Manual of Style: Suggested content standards.
• Always Always Always try to maintain neutrality in your contributions.
• When you make comments to a discussion page, sign your comments by using the tilde '~' symbol: add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of a post to leave your username and the timestamp.
• Be bold in editing pages.
• The Wikipedia Signpost: Wikipedia's community newspaper.
• A happy editor is always successful. Have fun!

Cheers and good luck, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Postscript

Until you write a longer userpage, you might want to consider setting up your userpage as a redirect to your talkpage, by adding #REDIRECT [[User talk:Askari Mark]] to your userpage. It will make things easier for other editors, because they won't have to deal with redlinks to your userpage.

Tejas

The article is very difficult to read. There is a lot of badly organized information, the text flows poorly, and important concepts are lost in a sea of minutia. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Opinon

Would you please take a look at Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91)? We need some outside opinions on an ongoing dispute. Thanks. --BillCJ 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! Your signature is pointing not to your user page or talk, but to the user page of the user Name, user:Name (by the way, that user has only about 3 edits, and has been blocked indefinetely). Is that your intention?--Laur2ro 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. There was a period during August and through most of September where something happened to my talk page link. If you click on it, it still links to "user:Name". Oddly, though, the occasionaly new talk page I've only worked on since then also sometimes gets referenced to "user:Name", even though my user name appears correctly. I have no idea why. I've gone back and tried to eliminate all of the past mentions of "user:Name", replacing it with my proper name. We'll see how that works. (BTW, you should set up your Talk page; right now you're only linked to your personal page.) Thanks again, Mark.

I believe you can do that in your preferences. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, but sometimes my work still gets linked to "User". BTW, thanks for fixing my ID in the WP:Num! Mark

List of air forces

Hi Mark,

I like the wikitable you have designed for List of air forces, but if you are going to run multiple countries together in a single table, may I suggest a more significant line separator between nations?

I agree and know this is not the only table that could benefit from (say) a slightly thicker border between nations. I reckon the simplest/neatest/most effective method would be to add an appropriate CSS class next to the row dividers (i.e. |- class="rowborderthing") but don't know what "rowborderthing" might be... (...Just tried a quick internet search, but nothing obvious returned...)  I guess I could ask one of the HTML/CSS guys I've passed by here, unless you have another idea...?  Glad you like the wikitable approach, although a little complicated; I hope Lars (Necessary Evil) does as well. Even if something simpler used, I'd say sorting out some kind of alignment/s for the flags/roundels will be a major improvement. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm among the HTML-challenged; I only know enough to be dangerous. :o I tried to see if I could change the style of the border lines between nations to something like the border="2" formula I've used for List of military aircraft of Japan and List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS, but I gave up after an hour of messing around trying to get it to work with the wikitable template. I've browsed around trying to find an example of coding to do that, but without luck. Maybe Lars has an idea??? ... of course, I don't feel so bad since Mets501 also had problems. Askari Mark | Talk 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have just left this request with someone I hope will ride to our rescue. Yours, David (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

... I see what AzaToth has done ... but I see no change in the border at all...
During spare moments here I'm working on a generic/configurable approach (i.e. intended to be useful beyond List of air forces) that hopefully will work across platforms... Regards, David (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...Decided the above was probably more trouble than it was worth (but spawned {{Trb}} and {{Table}} as a result). Meanwhile, have switched the border colo/urs from silver to darkgrey; how do they look now...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do like the slightly darker outer border. However, {{Trb}} appears to have no effect. I ran the width up to 100px and nothing happened. I don't know why this should be so. Is there something about class="wikitable" that locks out subsequent formatting changes? If so, would creating a class="wikitable-trb" work? Askari Mark | Talk 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn... looks like this may be a browser problem; {{Trb}} seems to work fine with Firefox, but not with IE (is that what you're using...?)  I'll try looking into it a little and/or asking someone more knowledgeable. Sigh, David (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using IE7. It seems that every "improvement" MS makes to their software, the worse it performs. :( Askari Mark | Talk 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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 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'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 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 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 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Numismatics

Greetings!! I'd like to welcome you to WikiProject Numismatics. Anything you see that can be improved upon, go for it, anything that is lacking add it, anything that is all together absent, please fill us in. There are quite a few knowledgeable people of both numismatics and wikipedia, in this little project, so don't hesitate to ask. Please be sure to read through the whole of the project pages, as we have just recently started using some of them. Again, welcome.

You can add this to your user page:

{{NumismaticWikiProject-Member}}

Which looks like so:

This user is a member of the Numismatics WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of numismatics on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join.

Hope this gets you off and contributing to the little project that makes the world go round. If you need anything don't hesitate to ask either me, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. See ya  :) Joe I 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Mark: Thanks for taking the time to proof-read and improve the Military history of Africa article while preserving its contents. Greatly appreciated. IZAK 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re "User:User"

Hi again Mark,

I've recently experienced an "identity problem" for the second time since joining Wikipedia. Recently, my signature code has somehow changed (not by me) from [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] to [[User:User|Askari Mark]]...

Can you recommend a wiki-techno I can contact about this? Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally began a list of helpful technical folk only a day or so ago and I know there are as many missing as I've managed to recall!  If memory serves, I'd say User:Mzajac (Michael) seems particularly knowlegeable about the Wikipedia software etc or should know someone to ask. I guess the weird behavior you've described isn't some kind of vandalism, but it's new to me!  Hope you find a solution, David (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
PS Haven't forgotten about this above; one of the other people on the list will probably be able to advise re {{trb}} and IE.

This is very strange, and I can't think of what is causing it. Perhaps it has something to do with the pipe "|" divider between the two links in your signature.

Mark, have a look at your preferences ("my preferences" link at the top of the page). What exactly is in the signature field, and do you have the "raw signature" box checked?

Can you find an example where your signature changed on the page? It may be helpful to look at the diff where it happened. —Michael Z. 2006-12-01 18:33 Z

Thanks for taking a look, Michael! The change occurred on Nov. 28th, although it's hard to narrow down the time. My last post on the 27th was timestamped at 19:34. I first noticed it and made my first signature correction at 13:11 on the 28th. My preferences signature field (currently) has "[[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] | [[User talk:Askari Mark|Talk]]" and the "raw signature" box is checked. An example of where I had to correct my sig can be found in the history section of this talk page: "22:56, 29 November 2006 Askari Mark (→List of air forces - Corrected user ID)" — Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From the page history, it looks like the link was entered that way, way back on November 11. Is it possible that you were using something like {{username}} in your sig field at the time, or that you simply entered incorrectly and didn't notice until later? I've never seen a change in a Wikipedia page that doesn't show up in the history, although I believe there is a way for an admin to revert a vandal and leave its work hidden. —Michael Z. 2006-12-01 20:53 Z

No, since I first set it as "User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark", I've only changed it to fix the "User:User" problem. The odd thing to me is that whatever is happening, my signature in old posts gets changed. I would expect the changed signature to start appearing in posts subsequent to whatever caused it. It also appears to take time to propagate. As I began checking my sig in old posts, some that were initially okay I later found to be changed — although none that I had fixed have reverted. My best guess would be that something or someone "resets" my user name code to "user" and the system slowly tries to correct this until I fix my sig. Askari Mark | Talk 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy solution

You wrote... Then the best that can be done is probably to describe it as "what would today be called a form of 'concubinage'", and explain the kind of relationship it was then through a brief description in the text or as a footnote or possibly with a link (if there is a suitable article on Muslim marriage customs). I settle for your suggestion and award you a barnstar for the refreshing logic that was lacking from all parties of that discussion.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your solution to the edit war on Safiyya bint Huyayy on whether she was or wasn't a concubine of Mohammad FrummerThanThou 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much for my first Barnstar! I am honored, and glad that I could help cut that Gordian knot. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

pleasure, I hope your comment comes to the consensus. I have asked respected admin user:jpgordon to make a decision. you can leave a comment on my comment on his talk. by the way, would you like me to move your barnstar to your userpage? FrummerThanThou 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I will move a copy of it to my user page later. I will add a note to your comment on user:jpgordon's talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

May I second this Barnstar? It's always wonderful, especially with the pathetic excuse for public discourse that exists in the United States, to see anyone respond to a dispute with thorough research instead of just rhetoric. I gave a Barnstar to Jossi for a similar reason, and I would like to quote here what I said there:

I was supremely impressed with the way that you stepped into the talkpage and did a lot of research into the question. I tried to be a voice of reason and moderation, but was simply too lazy/distracted to put in the effort that you did. I don't know you that well, but that one example speaks very highly of your skills as a Wikipedian.

Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, Karl! I am an analyst by profession and much of my job is basically to cut through wrong, contradictory, and incomplete information to determine the "ground truth" (or as near an approach as is possible). I also have a broad interest in world history. I believe I came across the issue on your talk page, as a matter of fact, and thought I might be able to make a useful and neutral contribution since I have no stake in the article or its subject. As it happens, I made an effort some time back to learn about different and unusual (to me) cultural practices of ancient Middle Eastern societies. That coincided with making friends with a nice couple from the UAE who were open to discussing all sorts of things in a "civilized, Western manner" (they were UK-educated). They even gave me a gift of a copy of what they felt was the best annotated English version of the Qur'an, which I read. So I at least have a passing familiarity with it. Unfortunately, as you noted, the quality of public discourse in the US (and in the Middle East) is rather blunt, insipid and uninformed, so it's rare that I get to exercise it. In any case, I've probably exhausted what I can do for the Safiyya article, as what it needs is well beyond my level of experience and interest ... and I have too many projects which are in line with my interests and more expert knowledge on my to-do list as it is. (BTW, I think you should have kept the Ingoolemo handle.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More re #List of air forces above

Hi again Mark,
Revisiting the problem you reported with {{trb}} and Internet Explorer, can you see some thicker-line dividers in the table here...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, unfortunately, no. Microsoft has always been bad with graphics ... that's why I miss my old Power Mac! Thanks for keeping on trying! Mark

Okay, last throw of the dice before I say "Dump IE!": Can you see thicker borderlines here...?  Daring to hope, David (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Only on the outer borders, not the internal line dividers. :( -- Askari Mark (Talk) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's "Dump IE!"... The example on the test page uses HTML tags to specify the internal dividers, so if IE can't parse those...!  I think I'll start tabulating the other sections anyway; if a solution arises later, I can't imagine it being difficult to replace the divider code (identical each time) with whatever flatters IE... Thanks for the feedback, David (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your persistent help, David! Too bad IE is such a poor excuse for a browser. But then, having a near monopoly means you can always just skate by. :( I'll try and help out on the list, but please keep an eye out for any blemishes I might add that I cannot see. Merry Christmas! Askari Mark (Talk) 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto!  David (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

You added a {{cn}} note, when a photo of the operation was just above, and that photo had an attached caption indicating the circumstances, as well as a link to the original photo. Why? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not a matter of whether Iraqi a/c were "discovered buried in the sand", but of how many. The article quotes "several dozen" and I've seen a wide range of numbers for this, quite a few of which were fewer than "several dozen." It would be particularly nice if an authoritative source were found, preferably giving the quantities by type. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Award

Here is an award for you. Do with it what you please! I usually try to put wards ont he main page but you dont have an awards section so I will leave it up to you to decide.

		The Wikiproject Aircraft Wiki-Wings
		I, Chrislk02, award you this wiki-wings for the excellent work you do with Wiki project aircraft! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Wings", Chris! I appreciate it — and I'm glad to know I'm making a difference! Merry Christmas!! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I think valuable editors are way to often overlooked. It is amazing what a simple thanks, or an award is worth! Happy holdiays to you as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re ...List of air forces table discussion

Hi Mark,

...Would you mind making suggestions regarding my notes in Talk:List of air forces#Issues related to the changeover to the new table format?

Sorry not to spot your post before; these issues also occurred to me while tabulating the B section. Have added some thoughts (and a link to a page where I've been experimenting) to the thread. Yours, David (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

Before Christmas finally prevails, decided to be bold and start implementing {{LOAF entry}}. Hope it's self-explanatory once you see it. Best wishes, David (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to respond. Just before Christmas, I began having computer problems which eventually led to my being unable to access the internet or my email. After stumping the 2nd-line support experts at AT&T and Microsoft, I put it in the shop ... where they're still trying to figure it out. (Insert expletive of your choice here.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds as if it's time to bite the bullet and go for an upgrade – unless, I suppose, it's been less than a year since you last did so. I know, though, just how much hassle that can be. I hope by the time you read this the situation has been resolved one way or the other; at least frustration can then be replaced by action.

As you may've seen, the List of air forces has now been "LOAF"ed, but, as and when you're able to devote a little time to it, there're still plenty of gaps and queried dates!  Hope all else well for the new year, David (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As best as I was able to discern, the TCP/IP card went bad and a replacement has been ordered by my "mechanic." During all of this, I also confirmed my suspicion that Microsoft's IE7 is evil. Each successive version of Internet Explorer has been buggier than the last, and even with my RAM maxed out and generous virtual memory, response times significantly worsened when I first downloaded it — and greatly improved after I removed it amidst my travails. IE6 is much better, but I plan to download Firefox after I get my 'puter back. I'm hoping to be back online at home by this weekend and I'll take a look at the "LOAF'ed list then. Happy New Year to you! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 3 January 2007 (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 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pitot-static system rating

Hey! Would thanks for the cleanup on Pitot-static system, it is much appreciated! WOuld you mind rating the article? I an indifferent as to what it is rated, however I prefer not to rate articles that i am the main contributor too. If you would rather not, that is ok too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sure, I'm willing to rate it ... depending on what Badbilltucker has to say regarding my query. However, the article is brand-spanking new, so let's give a week or so to stabilize.

That is probably a good idea. I also nominated it for main page in the Did you know section. It should have no problem getting on the page in a few days. DYK articles get a handfull of cleanup edits, and editors who know somethong on the topic willing to contribute. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiWings

Thanks! :-) - Aerobird 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazian Air Force

Thanks for working on the Abkhazian Air Force article. "Quasi-states" such as that have always been an odd interest of mine...

(Begins imagining the Sealand Air Force... ^_^ )

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been planning it for a while, actually ... other things have just kept getting in the way. Fortunately, today the kids had to stay home from school due to icy roads, which gave me a long enough block of time to put things together. When I'd originally started reformatting List of air forces into tables, I'd planned next to start working on the obscure air forces since I know more about them than most folks. (That's how I got involved with the Abkhazia article.) BTW, I actually corresponded with one of the Sealand guys a few years ago.... :D Askari Mark (Talk) 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Abkhazian Air Force, was selected for DYK!

On January 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abkhazian Air Force, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. :-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the DYK article! keep up the good work.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:25, 23 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 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2Jerry lavoie 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

deathcamps.org vs.death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen

As an alternative, I could ask for the articles to be semi-protected as a way of either forcing the anons out into the open or driving them away from the articles. On the other hand, there are quite a few pages involved, and moreover I don't think at the moment the threshold for semi-protection has been reached. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If all they're doing is changing the code to a mirror site, I think it would be nearly impossible to get even one of the articles SP'd without the culprits also engaging in serious vandalism of the text itself. I would advise making a list of the affected articles and keeping a list of the IPs that are making the changes (for future identification of sockpuppets, if need be). Then just wait them out. After a few weeks with no further contesting of their changes, they'll figure their mission is accomplished and go on to something else. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[1] Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template help

Okay, fixed.

(An aside: you are aware that air forces get {{Infobox Military Unit}}, right? Considering we've just added a large number of fields to it specifically for that reason, and everything. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Yes, I am aware of it ... but I hadn't spotted the reference to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history until today as I was running the sound system for my daughter's 6th-grade talent show, which was last night. I have some comments on the current version and wanted to have an alternative to show ... as well as start learning something about template design. Best, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat scheme

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Mark,

Regarding you comments on the proposed update to the WP:AIR categorisation scheme, I want to recap a few things to make sure that I'm set to move ahead with (another) 'formal' request for ratification.

My assessment: your comments 1, 3, and 4 seem to be resolved. (Regarding 4, I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than be spelled out in our cat scheme.) 6 is essentially unresolvable for the moment.

Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from [[Learjet <model>]] to [[Bombardier Learjet <model>]], or both?

Rgarding 2: the definition of special-purpose aircraft, it seemed from WT:AIR that the best course of action was to rename the category Category:Special mission aircraft and use it for miscellaneous ones.

Also, what do you think of my comment that the AC-130 is more of a special mission aircraft than anything else? Karl Dickman ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe issues 1 and 3 have been appropriately addressed. WRT issue 4, you're right in that it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope you'd include the three naming convention points as the WP:Air preference, so that we'll have fewer cases to deal with in the future. Those three points were

1. the nation of the designer/manufacturer;
2. if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation; and
3. if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used.

If so, this resolves issue 5 as well. (Ditto 6 in the future, if followed.) I was not proposing a rename, but rather raising the issue of consistency. "Learjet" was an American company; if it's now to be listed as a Canadian company, then the proper title is "Bombardier Learjet". According to point #3 of my aircraft article naming convention guideline schema above, the article title would remain "Learjet" (which is what I personally prefer) and categorized as "U.S.". However, if Bombardier Learjet were to introduce a brand new model, we'd have to rethink it as the Canadian TTa producer of Learjet models in its own right.

Regarding issue 2, I'm not sure there really was a consensus. I do prefer having a "Special Missions Aircraft" (or perhaps more accurately, an "Other Special Missions Aircraft") category as a subcategory of "Military aircraft"; I'm not sure whether the "Civilian aircraft" category should have one (which would require Military/Civilian in their names to distinguish them), since most of those would fit just as well under "Experimental aircraft" (if suitably defined).

As for the AC-130, I have no problem treating it as a "Special mission aircraft" — but then so are all the other "double-letter" variants. Frankly, I still feel uncomfortable lumping attack, COIN and gunship aircraft in with bombers. The latter are strategic and the former are tactical in role. I'd prefer to separate "Attack" back out and include gunships and other COIN aircraft in it. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ADA logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ADA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DEAD

Hey, you don't have to remove redlinks on dead-end pages anymore, because a bot will be doing this from now on. Keep up the good work! Salad Days 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that bot today. How often do you plan to run it?

I don't know if you're the person to do this, but it would also be nice whenever these lists are updated, that working redirect pages and that deleted pages which have been protected against recreation be automatically skipped. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my bot, but I'm told it will be run once per day. The reason that there are redirects in the list is because they have been either moved, renamed, or redirected to good articles since the page was generated; there were no redirects when the page was created. Deleted articles containing nothing but the protected page template are technically dead-ends, since they contain no links outside of the template. When I update the page next time, I may choose to filter out results which already contain templates, but for the moment it's not a big deal, as there are only a few of them and they can be easily removed. Salad Days 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Flanker codenames

Well, I had just changed them to match the ones in the various articles...so they're all wrong then?

Su-47 = guess next time I'll look to see if something already exsists further down the page. ;-)

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the articles have a lot of problems. I've gone through the MiG articles and corrected a lot of these, but not the Sukhoi articles. Everything in the List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS is correct (at least until my final correction was added back whenever). I went through each and every entry correcting and adding, and verified every datum in the list. In particular, one thing I made sure of was that the NATO code names were all correct (or as correct as available open-source information makes possible). BTW, I'm correcting and adding to the List of air forces as I go, but I'm likewise afraid I haven't followed through on the relevant articles. :( Askari Mark (Talk) 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Heyo, thanks for the comment! I replied, basically saying that any smaller issues with earlier commands are not really that notable (and individual ones, like the rumors that Shelton didn't want to promote him) are included where sourceable. And as for why he was passed up, there's no source that can possibly give a reason because no reason was ever given. I've included the predominant assumption/rumor, but no reason that can be stated was given. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, and double-sourced your citation needed statement, to make it quite clear it was a heavily shared opinion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I know that was not the reason given... Again, there was no reason given, that's why there's no reason given in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've made a proposal on the FAC, if you'll check it out. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• And I've added the criticism section, I hope it meets with your request. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for keeping an even-head despite my douchebaggery. I had been having a bad couple of days and seeing my work get shot down a bit made me go off a bit, as you likely noticed. :p I'll try to work the existing criticism into the general article as per other requests and I'll find what I can on the Waco incident. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're doing good, Staxringold, really! I think this may well prove one of the best bios on Wikipedia and it will be mostly to the credit of your hard work! And it's never easy writing outside of one biases — not many people nowadays are good at giving a fair rendering of "the other side's" POV. It's a sad commentary on the quality of modern American public discourse, I'm afraid, that even to for a moment entertain a negative thought about one's candidate is considered, at best, lèse majesté and at worst, simply "handing ammo to the enemy." Because of this, our leaders are portrayed in strictly pale, sophmoric, blasé terms.

It's especially hard to capture someone's "human-ness" in an encyclopedic article. Although it's "original research" (unless you can find a rare source that might provide the same insight), let me share with you a little of what was behind Gen. Clark's issues with the NATO ambassadors. First of all, you have to understand that SACEUR is quite a full-time job; so is running a war. The former is mostly politics, while the latter is beans, bullets and bloodshed. In WWII, Eisenhower took the responsibility for handling the worst of the politics so that his generals could focus on their combat jobs. Wes got both. Yes, he wanted it, but some of the opposition to his appointment was just that. He'd gotten along well with the ambassadorial-level politics as SACEUR, which helped him. However, the way the war was executed politically was horrible. Every day there was a committee to approve the next day's targeting list. The proposed list was submitted according to perceived military need, but the government of each nation contributing forces had a veto. What this meant in practice was that a factory owned (or mostly owned) by, say, a Greek company (especially a notable one) would be vetoed by the Greek representative. Ditto the Italian, French, etc., reps. That gives you an idea of the level of frustration Wes had to deal with on a daily basis. Imagine Gen. Bradley during WWII having to suffer Montgomery, De Gaulle, and the representatives of the Polish, Czech, etc., governments in exile being able to veto the strategic bombing and tactical airstrikes every day. Wes has never suffered fools gladly, so you can imagine how hard it was sometimes resisting the urge to shoot someone. Being hamstrung and straightjacketed is not way to fight a war. Add to that the fact that Wes is one of those people to whom it seems most folks take either a strong liking to or a strong disliking to and few in between, and it's hard to imagine a scenario other than the "perfect storm". Now, isn't that a more interesting insight into the man than his medals? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, absolutely, but I can only include what I can source (or, as you said, it would be original research). I've heavily rewritten the article to try and meet your and other needs, I hope you'll stop by the FAC and leave new comments! Thanks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-Action Recordings

Yes this article needs clean up. That is why I added the importance tag. :) It seems no one has found any references - I certainly coundn't. Time to prod. Obina 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK.

Domenico Selvo

Hey, Askari Mark. I'm currently trying to bring this article from the near-stub that it was a few days ago to GA status if not FA. I've been reading around about the wikification of years and I don't seem to find any consensus. In some FAs I've found, there are even some places where dates are wikified and other places where they are not. At the moment, my article (which is in its early adolescent stage) has a scattering just like that. I wonder if you could give me a hand in figuring this out. Thanks a lot. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JHMM13! I took a look at your article and it looks like you've got a good start, especially for such a tough subject. Let me first say that the best strategy for developing a GA or FA article is to get know the style guidelines of Wikiprojects whose members would be the most likely to review it — and to help you get there. I would suggest WikiProject History (WP:WPH) and WikiProject Former countries (WP:WPFC).

Regarding wikilinking dates, at the moment there's some serious debate going on about what dates should or should not be linked, since it sometimes seems to go at cross-purposes. (Cf. this debate, for instance.) Please also note that GA and FA standards have been "tightening up" over the last year, so older articles may not be up to snuff. Here's my advice on the date-linking issue:

• Per WP:DATE as it currently stands, the first priority is to link full dates (e.g., "February 4, 2007") to enable user preferences for how they want the date displayed, as there are several possibilities ("4 February 2007", "2007-02-04", etc.). My example would be coded [[February 4]], [[2007]]. Don't link month/year combinations ("February 2007") or stand-alone dates without the year ("... as of February 4, the ...").

• Although WP:DATE encourages wikilinking stand-alone years, I see no purpose in it — unless it should tie into a "year in xyz" timeline page. For the time being, I wouldn't suggest adding those. Your article wouldn't be "docked" for it anyway.

I hope this advice helps! Best wishes, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'll be taking your suggestions into consideration. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Aircraft Category

I removed the category because it was improperly placed on the main page. These types of categories belong on the talk page. This article is in the category Category:WikiProject Aircraft articles. Category:WikiProject Aircraft is for articles relating to the project itself. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Regardless of what eventually happens to the article (and I think our combined power can get it featured eventually... :) ) I just wanted to say thanks for sticking by your comments throughout the FAC rather than just letting them sit there as sometimes happen. You've really engaged and made the article better, so I felt like you deserved a little:

		The Reviewers Award
		I, Staxringold, award you this Reviewers Award for your consistent responses in the 2nd featured article candidacy of Wesley Clark that has made the article quality grow in leaps and bounds! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Melismatic

Why did you add a merge tag suggesting that Melismatic and Musical notation should be merged? That makes no sense. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

4th generation jet fighter - seems to have turned into a cold war zone

Hello there

I have been recommended by User:David Kernow to contact you regarding an issue with article 4th generation jet fighter. Please see orginal review request.
Could you please see the history of the artice 4th generation jet fighter and review the article itself with your good aircraft knowledge. It seems to have a lot of disputes between editors of Indian and Pakistani origins. I'm sure its not too serious, but such disputes are still undesirable on an encyclopidic article.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ash sul. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I've been out of town on a business trip. I'll try to take a look at this today, but my wife is sick, so depending on how much our kids help out, I may have minimal time. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark

Firstly, I hope your missus gets better very soon. I very much look forward to getting your thought on this whole thing. 'Coz frankly, (in my opinion) encyclopidia should be used to echo national pride and personal opinions.

Many thanks. -- Ash sul 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dude,

Sorry to bug you again, but I'm getting very furstrated with certain users (especially of Indian origin using wikipedia articles to promote their countries progression agenda. This 4th generation jet fighter article is still being used as a platform to promote Indian "advancement over other nations", especially when it comes to 4.5th and 5th generation aircrafts.

For example, Russia has offered India to participate in a 5th generation fighter project earlier this year and deal has reportedly been signed. Since then, our Indian editors have taken this opportunity to link this to a near-complete project, the PAK FA, going as far as calling the PAK FA a joint Indo-Russian project.

Now, my argumennt is that based on vague news reports, an encyclopedic article must never be edited. India-Russia 5th generation fighter programme may very well be a new project other than the PAK FA. The point is that, until an official programme pronouncement, we just don't know!

Similiar trends are visible in other indian project articles such as HAL Tejas, where Indian editors gone as far as sometimes claiming th aircraft "better than F-16s".

As you are quite a knowledgeable person in this field, I was wondering if you would mind reviewing this issue.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark once again

Hey Askari Mask, just thought you'd like to know that the FAC for Wesley Clark was nicely reset by Raul, given all the work put into it. I'd appreciate you stopping by! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stax! I'm not ignoring you. Unfortunately, since I returned from my business trip, I've had to take care of a sick wife. I'll stop by as soon as I can get a chance. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much! Hope your wife gets better soon, stop by whenever you can. I believe we dealt with your issues in the previous FAC, the only objections now are a fixed one about adding a few links to external links and a holdout guy who refuses to accept that using a campaign sign to display the campaign is already accepted fair use already used in modern political FAs (Barack Obama). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes ... my wife is getting better. So much so she tried installing something on the home computer Sunday and "broke" Windows. * Sigh * Hopefully it will come back from the shop soon. As for the pic, try inviting/challenging him to offer a mutually agreeable alternative. Anyone who's got the time to maintain a single point of criticism like that ought to have the time to make such a small contribution. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Problem is his alternative is just removing it. Regardless, Barack Obama is a featured article using more than one campaign logo in exactly this way, and if this isn't fair use then {{logo}} shouldn't exist. Hope to see ya back in action soon! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just got the first of the freely released images I'm getting from WesPAC. This is a nice shot of his announcement speech in 2004. Can't wait til you can get online. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Avoiding redirect"

Hi. Regarding this edit.[2] Changing the name of HS in text is fine, but there is no need to bypass redirects. An edit to change it is thousands of times (I think I'm quoting right) harder on the servers than a redirect. Mark83 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mark. I was responding to the request at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Hawker Siddeley Harrier - assistance required". Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, if you want to go ahead, no problem with me, because I understand the urge to have things pointing directly to the relevant article (I have felt the need to fix redirects in past). I just thought I'd let you know the official policy. Best regards. Mark83 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Again, hope your wife is feeling alright and your computer is too! Just thought I'd let you know that the 2nd time around for the Wesley Clark FAC was very successful, and the article was just promoted! Sorry you couldn't participate, wanted to say thanks again for all the work you put in the first time around! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• How's life treating ya'? I realize it's odd to have a casual converation through WP, just noticed from your Contribution times that you're online right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My wife is okay and I got my home computer back from the shop. Just killing some time between family interruptions. Had to remove and reload Windows, followed by a few other programs and I'm about half finished with that. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble with email - I can't manage to get my old email and address files reintegrated. After over an hour with my ISP's help desk, I was put on hold while he consulted with Microsoft ... and the line got dropped. I'll have to try again tomorrow.

Congratulations on getting WC promoted! You've certainly earned it with all your hard work. What's next on your agenda? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes. Sounds roughly like your computer exploded, essentially. Reloading the OS is never fun. As for what's next, I dunno. Thusfar I've just taken up whatever article struck my fancy. I failed with Elisha Cuthbert and Taylor Hicks, but generally I'm successful (Cuthbert got GA status, at least). Any ideas? Wanna collaborate on something? :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD.A5

Hi, I notice you've tagged a few articles as speedy deletion candidates because they were transwikied. From the text of WP:CSD#A5, it seems that only articles that have been discussed at an AFD where the outcome was to transwiki may be speedy-deleted after transwikification is complete. In the two cases I noticed (Salibi and Sale/Repurchase agreements), no such discussion had taken place. I just wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been going straight to the deletion templates table, which reads merely "Transwikification completed". That and the "Articles for Deletion (et al)" in the CSD A5 description left me with a mistaken impression. I've proposed to clarify that issue and will undo my mistakes. Sorry for the bother, but thanks for catching it (and educating me further). Askari Mark (Talk) 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The short description in the table is indeed misleading. I wouldn't have even paid any mind to the articles except that it was the first time I'd encountered an A5 notice and was compelled to find out what it was. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you prodded both articles rather than tagging them for AfD. Shouldn't they go through AfD? I'm a bit confused here. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Salibi article was actually previously prodded by another user and I prodded the Sale/Repurchase agreements article. Per WP:CSD, contested speedy-deletion candidates can still be prodded (or AfD'd if the editor thinks it's a controversial case). I hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation WikiProject Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Medal

Wow! Thanks very much! Couldn't have gotten it there without your detailed proofreading and constant presence for advice. So how are things going now? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just got back from a short trip to Houston with the family. Among other things, my wife, kids, and 79-year-old father-in-law got to see their first rodeo. Tomorrow I return to work to learn what new crises have arisen during my brief absence. I know there are two impending major projects due to start soon, but that doesn't mean there won't be others. I suspect I will continue only to manage a light touch on Wikipedia through the end of the month. Haven't decided what to work on next, but I'm starting to become embarassed over my growing backlog list, so I may have to clear off a couple. How about you ... aren't you supposed to be off enjoying Spring Break? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hah, UConn's break is a week off of the standard one, so I just got back... From sitting in my bed trying to decompress a bit. Dunno' what project to take up. I'm trying to go a different route, but it'll be tough to pick a non television, film, education, or biography article... I was thinking about Texas hold'em, but that's waaay too daunting a task. My userpage is all spiffy now, added your award and a service medal I didn't know existed, plus finally made my ribbons fruit salad below the medals themselves. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Flags on the Most Produced Aircraft Page

Yes, but we don't use the 48-star American flag just because the aircraft in question happened to be produced during a particular time period. As you've got a hell of a lot of av-related edits, and I'm just an enthusiast, I'll defer to your judgment, but I just wanted to kick up a bit of fuss first. KristoferM 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that (fuss is good), but then I'd also argue that Nazi Germany is a different country from the modern Germany. Moreover, I've found that modern Germans tend to get a bit queasy (at best) over anything that "rehabilitates" stuff from the Nazi era. We regularly get them AfD'ing articles about that era just because they think there's already too many articles about the Nazis already. I can understand that. I still remember the reaction of a German exchange student after watching "Hogan's Heroes" for the first time. Anyhow, keep on contributing and don't be afraid to revert me when I'm wrong. (Rarely.) :-) Askari Mark (Talk) 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd have to say that it is a good thing that modern Germans have a sense of shame regarding the Nazi period. It would be disturbing if they didn't. I kind of figured that was the rationale for the use of the Nazi flag, but I figured, 'be bold' and all. How did said student react to "Hogan's Heroes"? KristoferM 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He was most distraught and thought it abominable that the show made light of Nazis and joked about them. He felt the Nazis were too evil to be used even as the butt of humor, much less styled as endearing clowns (Sgt. Schultz & Col. Klink). When I pointed out that it was the first popular post-war WWII show in the US which didn't portray all Germans as evil Nazis, well, he just couldn't make that compute. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to learn that the German neo-Nazis are mostly from East Germany; as communists, they were told it was the West Germans who were Nazis and responsible for all that evil. Ironically, that's now their mode of rebellion against both East and West. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

death-camps.org v. deathcamps.org

Did we have a conversation about this some time in the past? I recall asking somebody about it. Can you remind me why the folks who go about making this change are so concerned about it? --Rrburke^(talk) 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of it was on a user talk page, but I forget whose. The tail end of it is [[User talk:Askari Mark#deathcamps.orgvs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen|here]]. You had posted about an edit war over these two sites. The one w/o a hyphen was the original site of a group researching info on the Nazi death camps, but the group suffered a "civil war" over the introduction of some fraudulent material; the one with the hyphen was a mirror of that (but w/o the bad material). A friend of the "fuehrer" of the old group has been going around censoring links to the mirror site. You were wondering which to use and whether it would be necessary to go back and fix all his changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Marks statements are completley untrue and false. The site with the hyphen is a counterfeit website in violation of corpyright. This is validated by a simple WHOIS on both domain names. Wikiepedia DOES not support copyright violations. So why would you promote fraudulent websites or suggest others do? -The Genuine ARC team.

To the anon signing as "The Genuine ARC team":

• First, do not add hidden text or spam as it is considered vandalism; so is altering another editor's posting, as you did here earlier. If you do not understand Wikipedia's rules (or care to follow them), then you should not be posting here.
• Second, my statements were not "completely untrue and false"; they were based on research and available online commentary from your side and your opponents. If you have a problem with their version, take it up with them (as I am not a member of either group).
• Third, if you had bothered to read closely what I actually wrote, you would have seen that I did not promote either website. Don't make accusations based on no evidence. Ask first, don't assume.
• Fourth, Wikipedia encourages taking a non-point-of-view (NPOV) position, so an edit war over links to either of two feuding websites naturally encourages responsible editors to try and find out more about what they've stumbled into.
• Fifth, don't jump into others' conversations making assumptions when you've never read the original discussion.
• Sixth, you shouldn't bring your outside feuds with other outsiders to Wikipedia; we're an encyclopedia, not a debate forum or a court. Your feud is non-notable to us, only an uninteresting problematic issue that we've had to deal with.
  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

JFYI, the man behind "the genuine arc team" is already known for spamming wiki, see the updates at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/11/heart-as-educational-resource.html --Sergey Romanov 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[3] Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Counterfeit ARC website

Mark, There is no feud. Please check whois.net or ICANN, or Network Solutions for validation of the Genuine ARC website. When you do this you will realize that the genuine ARC website can only be found at http://www.deathcamps.org and that the hyphenated site is a counterfeit and in violation of our copyright. Wikipedia does not encourage copyright violation and the proof of his is clearly found at the WHOIS authorities I've listed above.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter. The Genunie ARC team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.161.15 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The above is, of course, incorrect. Chris Webb doesn't own any copyrights on ARC materials just by being the owner of the deathcamps.org domain. In fact, he had been repeatedly asked to remove the copyrighted materials by one of the contributors - http://www.deathcamps.org/websites/jmain.htm (cf. with http://www.death-camps.org/websites/jmain.htm )

Therefore, it is the current deathcamps.org site which contains stolen material.

--Sergey Romanov 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User 141.157.161.15 Your personal issues are not a matter for Wikipedia. Since it is apparent from your user history that you participate in Wikipedia only to assert your position on this issue, you really do not belong on Wikipedia. If you believe you have a copyright violation issue with the other site's owner(s), then you need to take it up with them through due process in court, not vandalizing Wikipedia with your POV and making untrue accusations about its editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Sergey. That is pretty much what I had discovered during my own independent research. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, by allowing a Wiki User to violate Wiki Copyright regulations you are acting in Collusion with the vandal.

You are well aware of the WHOIS.net and copyright information for the genuin ARC www.deathcamps.org and the attempts by Sergey Romanov to vandalize and promote the counterfeit copy with the hypen.

You are being formally requested to cease and desist from this behaviour, this is in violation of Wiki Rules. You should know better.

-The Genuine ARC team

You cannot "formally" give a cease and desist notice like this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

... especially since I haven't done anything to cease and desist from. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

the d.org business

...is now being discussed by the admins here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats.2C_counterfeit_websites.2C_oh_my.21

--Sergey Romanov 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Domenico Selvo

A few months ago, you helped me out in getting this article started. Now I think it is close to ready for FA nomination. If you could help me out in this peer review before I go to FAC, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you very much, JHMM13 09:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions in this peer review. Thanks a lot for reviewing it, and I can't wait to see any further suggestions you might have if you feel like spending the time on it :-). I think now I have an adequate number of reviews to take to FA (naturally after I've satisfied the suggestions of all reviewers!!). If you wish to wait till it gets to there, I'll be sure to drop you a line letting you know it's up. Thanks again, JHMM13 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded again. Thanks again :-D JHMM13 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued help in this FA drive! I've made the requested changes to the article and if you have any other concerns or suggestions, please please please let me know and I'll try to figure out where I went wrong. Thanks also for being bold and changing the article on your own...it's our article, after all! :-D JHMM13 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Military Aircraft Design Companies

On a totally unrelated note, I was having a look at your sandbox and I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency regarding the nationality of certain companies. For example, in the case of Aero Vodochody you note that it is from both Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. For Antonov you note that it is from both the Soviet Union and the Ukraine. However, in the case of Focke-Achgelis you only list Germany as the nationality with the current German flag. However, the company, as you note, went out of business in 1945. Shouldn't the flag shown here be the Nazi flag as it was the official flag of Germany at the time? Same question for companies like Hamburger Flugzeugbau that did exist post-war and perhaps should have both the Nazi flag and the current German flag. Obviously you aren't done with this article yet, so I know I'm nit-picking at something in-progress, but I'm just wondering. Thanks, JHMM13 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not nitpicking — it's an issue I'm still wrestling with. Originally, I'd intended to only have multiple flags for multinational companies. Then, to give more historical insight, I put in previous national flags. The problem is that for some German companies I was faced with including the German Imperial, Weimar, Nazi, and FRG flags — and almost all of the US companies would need more than one flag as well. (There's also the side issue of Germans getting tired of seeing Nazi flags everywhere.) I may still go back and add Nazi flags for those firms that went extinct at the end of WWII; I haven't decided. Currently, I'm leaning toward including earlier flags only where the former entity "disintegrated": Soviet Union -> Russia, Ukraine, etc.; Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic and Slovakia; Yugoslavia -> Serbia, etc.; Austro-Hungarian Empire -> its constituents; etc. My overall intent is to provide a reference list that helps a reader back out the historical track of companies' evolving names (at least for companies designing and producing the aircraft found in historical air forces). Any thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can minimize this problem by having two possibilities: original nationality and current nationality. This would help people get an idea for the context in which the company was founded and most likely grew and then the context that it is now in. This obviously becomes important for companies that have existed in the same physical place, but in many different countries. It also allows for a brief visual explanation of a company that might have taken a similar path as Halliburton that is slowly moving its headquarters (and possibly nationality?) overseas. For a company like that, you could say...Original nationality: US. Current nationality: East Timor. The problem I see with this approach, though, is that companies that have always existed in the US might have two American flags causing clutter in the list. I'm sure you could find a way around this, though. Let me know what you think. JHMM13 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)