User talk:Manxruler

This user may have left Wikipedia. Manxruler has not edited Wikipedia since June 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Manxruler is suffering from health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Welcome!

Hello, Manxruler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Falphin 15:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An image you uploaded, Image:Skancke-skjold.JPG, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could you please tell me what contained within "Thanks for your help in editing this article. Can you please provide citations for the information you added, including where you removed the 'citation needed' tag but did not provide a citation. Thanks." can be possibly construed as an 'attack'? Jeez, can a guy not make an honest mistake around here? And I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped writing on my userpage; that's what User talk:Cripipper is for. Thanks! :) Cripipper 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction with regards to proper procedure, it is appreciated. It was more your insistence in persisting in your claims that I found somewhat provocing. I would have had a closer look at things after the person I was requesting sources from stated that he had made no such changes, not just charged along.Manxruler 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did say it was off the top of my head. I was in a rush out. But hey - it can't have taken up more than two minutes of your time. No need to get ratty. :) Cripipper 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its cool, just be a little bit less hasty, is all. Manxruler 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice to meet you. We've sort of brushed shoulders recently. While tidying the WWII ship list, I came across the article on the Mowe class. It bothered me and I left a comment on its talk page. I'd appreciate your comment - and anyone else!! Torpedo boat type 35 may also need attention. Folks at 137 09:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I'll wait briefly to see if there's some good counter-argument, then I'll arrange the name changes. Folks at 137 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get an email adress Potaaatos 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that you can recive emails from people on wikipedia Potaaatos 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I erred with Togo and Kamerun. My source was [[1]] and I must have got into "auto" mode while going through that list. Thanks for picking up on it. I'm also using uboat.com as a source for Allied vessels and slowly working through them. Folks at 137 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to acquire 2 sources, but with some detail, I do take a chance. I would like the lists to use "standard displacement", as it had relevance under various treaties and it would limit the number of ships on the WWII list. It's become very large, but I'm uncertain of where and how to sub-divide it - probably alphabetically, but... I have a similar issue with the <1000 ton list. It could be huge. I think we need to sub-divide it soon, before every minesweeper and patrol craft appears. Also do we limit to "real" belligerents? There's been a discussion on who to include on Template:World War II, maybe that's a suitable guide. As for mucking in, maybe. My attention continues with the WWII list and the Eastern Fleet list and a list of WWII military operations. There's also a list of ship classes that might be useful. I find lists interesting as they give an entry into subjects, but is there any way of consolidating the warship lists? I'm thinking of a sortable list with attributes. Sorry for long waffle, didn't have time to do a short one, off to church. Folks at 137 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change that you made to this article and added a supporting reference. No offence intended. The referenced article seems relatively convincing, with plenty of detail, although I have read sources that only mention the mines. Let me know what you think as there are other articles that are affected. Folks at 137 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Hey, Folks. No, I'm not offended by your revert, not at all, in fact, I'm sorry for not replying any sooner, it's slipped my mind I guess.

According to German wikipedia [2] Leberecht Maas was either bombed or mined, while Max Schultz was mined.

However, according to this German encyclopedia [3] Leberecht Maas was bombed and Max Schultz definitively mined and this German encyclopedia [4] both were bombed. All in all I'm left quite unsure of what the official opinion really is. Manxruler 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is v big. I've put up some suggestions on the talk page. Your comments are sought. Folks at 137 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my incorrect 'fix'. The reason the text was corrected was that the Norwegian text was not tagged as Norwegian, so I've added the correct tags. The text will now be ignored by my English-language spelling corrections. I'll try to do a search for any similar text that needs tagging too. Thanks Rjwilmsi 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - I appreciate learning about language tagging. Manxruler 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear commander, this source: * Berg, Ole F.: [I skjærgården og på havet - Marinens krig 8. april 1940 - 8. mai 1945, Marinens Krigsveteranforening] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Oslo 1997 ISBN 82-993545-2-8 is a Norwegian source, as signified by the lang|no tag, hence the first letters of months is not supposed to be capital. I thought that tagging sources with lang|no would prevent this problem, isn't that correct? Manxruler 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. Thanks for pointing out the bug in my bot. I've made it ignore any text inside a lang template. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - Glad to be of assistance. Its a fine bot you have made, good to hear its getting even better. Manxruler 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the ISO 639 code list it's {{lang|sv|some text}} for Swedish. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - Thanks for the info. Appreciate it. Manxruler 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the kind words. As to the different numbers, not my doing unfortunately. I've been editing, creating new articles, etc for a large number of already listed submarines (mostly S class). They were basically red links, so the pennant number was already there and I saw no reason to change it. When cleaning up the links I came across the shipwrecks page and corrected the links to point to the new articles, and some that already existed. As to who first created the links, I'm not sure, but a lot of related articles used the pennants shown to link to that particular ship, so I'm guessing there is at least one source that lists those pennant numbers. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what it is. Colledge doesn't list their pennants, and the only place on the web I can find is Uboot.net. The problem is probably where the submarines used more than one pennant number in their career, and Uboot uses one and the original editor has used the other. Otherwise I'm not sure what to suggest. bye f'r now. Benea 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - Hello again. That makes sense, sometimes the pennant numbers are those first used, sometimes the ones used later. Personal preference of the Wikipedians that created the red links, I guess. Here's a great website for British subs of WWII:
British Submarines of World War Two. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. You are off to such a great start on the article HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks for that one too. Appreciate it. Manxruler 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Manxruler. You are off to such a great start on the article Trygg class torpedo boat that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi Jreferee. Thank you for reading the article, and for your commendation. As you suggested, I posted the article on the Did you know? suggestions. I'm honored that you liked my article. Manxruler 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trygg class torpedo boat, 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.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892), 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.

--Carabinieri 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the infobox. The template Convert supports any combination of units (within reason of course, you can't convert feet to degrees Fahrenheit, though). To convert feet to metres just reverse the units. Instead of {{convert|55|m|ft|2|lk=on}} , put {{convert|55|ft|m|2|lk=on}} to get 55 feet (16.76 m). The basic setup of the template is {{convert|original_value|original_unit|conversion_unit|round_to}} . The "lk=on" I tacked on to the end of the template was to automatically put links on the measurement units when they are used for the first time in an article (which should be done per WP:MOS).

If you have any questions about anything (related or non-related), let me know. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks. That's good info to have. A really useful template. Will get back to you if I have anything else at a later time. Be well. Manxruler 05:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems with change - I can see the logic, although to some Brit readers, Narvik was the Norwegian campaign and has a high profile. (BTW, is there a mention anywhere of the annual gift to Britain of a tree at Christmas as a commemoration?) Anyway, I'm out of my depth. As I said if it's useful, develop it. It was intended only as a prompt anyway. Folks at 137 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi again Folks. Glad you don't mind. Yeah, I can see how that would be true, the Brits are really Narvik-focused, although the fighting took place all over the country and British LAND forces fought mostly in the southern and mid portions of Norway (f.ex.: Namsos campaign). In fact, the Brits did virtually no land fighting on the Narvik front, they contributed with the RN and RAF while the Norwegians, French and the Poles fought Dietl's men on land. For the annual Christmas tree gift to London see either Norway (best) or Oslo. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Nordic-task-force includes Iceland, should Icelandic articles be included in the template? Folks at 137 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:Although Iceland is considered a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian country as such, I feel Invasion of Iceland could fit in quite well in the template. Besides, the whole definition of "Scandinavia" is quite open to interpretation and often includes the Nordic countries. Plus, Iceland was part of Denmark when the Brits invaded in 1940. Lets include the Invasion of Iceland, that makes sense. If there are other major Icelandic WWII articles they could probably work in the template too. Good idea. Manxruler 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::I think that since the Scandinavia article states (with ref.) that "As a linguistic and cultural concept, Scandinavia thus also includes Iceland and the Faroe Islands." it would be totally ok to add Icelandic articles (of importance comparable with the articles already in the template, of course) to the template. Manxruler 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your comments here. Valentinian is arguing that there are no real links between the wartime experiences of Denmark and othe Nordic countries and objects to the use of this template. Folks at 137 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Battle of Isefjord is quite small compared to other conflicts in WWII, it, as part of Operation Safari, was one of only 3 instances in which Danish forces outright fought with the Axis Powers (the other two being the initial Invasion of Denmark, and some sporadic fighting between German weather teams and the Slædepatruljen Sirius in Greenland). Operation Safari was a time of major upheaval in Denmark, as the Germans moved to intern the Danish Army and seize the Danish Navy after the resignation of the Danish Parliament. As such, I argue it belongs in the box, as a significant event in Scandinavia in WWII. Another solution to this problem would be to create an encompassing article on Operation Safari. 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23 (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23. You are completely correct in that Operation Safari should be in the template. The problem is, as you yourself point out, the Operation Safari article does not yet exist. The Isefjord article, however, covers a far too small incident to be included. Someone should create the Operation Safari article, write up a nice, well-sourced article. Perhaps I'll go create a stub/full-fledged article someday, or someone else will. You could help out in that regard, perhaps? Manxruler (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/Thanks Manxruler. I'd be happy to assist in the creation of an Operation Safari article. So far I haven't come across many sources, but there's this Danish Naval History website page: http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/History/1939_1945/us_safari.htm, this article by someone from the Royal Danish Naval Museum: http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Atlantic/OOB_WWII_Safari.htm , and I think a few books as well. This Wikimedia commons page has lots of great photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Operation_Safari , and I think the Danish Wikipedia has an article on the subject as well. Hope that helps! 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I know of/own a number of books on the subject, so creating such an article shouldn't be much of a problem at all. And it's very nice that we have many photos to work with. The Danish Wikipedia article is poor, as it cites very few sources, and those sources are not all good. Creating an article on Safari would have to wait until January 2016, though, as I'm away from my books at the moment (vacation). Manxruler (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the time comes to write the article, I think the best title would be "Scuttling of the Danish fleet", which is the title the Dutch, German and French Wikipedias use. Manxruler (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! Another source I have found is a Danish military website, and it has at least two articles pertaining to the subject (in Danish): http://milhist.dk/slaget/operation-safari-det-tyske-forsog-pa-at-afvaebne-det-danske-forsvar-2/, and http://milhist.dk/slaget/blev-der-skudt-mod-de-indtraengende-tyskere-pa-holmen-den-29-august-1943/ (I'm pretty sure they have one on the history of HDMS Niels Juel, which includes the Isefjord conflict). Both list references/read also 's that include old books, journals, and archived reports from the Naval Ministry (perhaps some things you've seen?), and have some great photos and charts. Anyways, the former is a more encompassing article on Operation Safari as a whole, while the latter is a more specific account of Danish Naval guard company delaying Germans with machine gun fire and grenades while they scuttled the guard vessel NORDKAPEREN and tried to blow up an air plane. It also refers to some other fighting in which a couple Danes were shot. Honestly, aside from the Isefjord conflict, I hadn't found anything with substantial evidence/reputability that recorded outright combat between the Danes and the Germans during the operation, or listed human casualties. As for the name being "Scuttling of the Danish Fleet", I think it's important to remember that the operation also targeted the Danish Army and some police (according to www.navalhistory.dk), and I'm not sure it would be entirely inclusive. Of course, we'll have more time to talk about this after the New Year, along with things like the listed result of the battle (Danish operational victory/German tactical victory/German strategic failure). 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'll see. Manxruler (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When do you plan on starting the Operation Safari article? I'm the same person as 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23, btw. I'll be using several different computers until I can create an account. 67.232.21.14 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure. Hope it'll be soon. Work is rather demanding atm, though. Manxruler (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2602:306:C53C:C0E0:3885:2104:BE78:BD23 here. My new account is @ Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, looks like it got moved to here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms. Oberiko 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocca, Gianni I disperati pag. 120-121 8804338261, Pedriali Ferdinando Biplani d'assalto in Africa Settentrionale Rivista Storica n.10, Coop. Giornalisti Storici, Rome.

There are more, just Gustin Aviation Encyclopedia on Internet says:

'More powerful development of the Ca.309, with retractable landing gear. The Ca.310 was not considered an effective combat aircraft, and most had second-line tasks. A number were exported.'

In Italy, sorry we have italian language, even if mr. Bzuk, my actual persecutor not accept it, but in Italy i say, it's plenty of complaints about Ca.310. In fact, they were refused by Hungary that buyed 30+ and lost for accidents 3 in few time, and in Africa the CA.310 was swiftly sobstitued as attack aircaft by CR.32 and Ba.65, two aircraft that should had been phased out, instead sobsitued their successor as attack aircraft(!!!!). Norway AFAIK accepted Ca.312 that was an improved Ca.310, UK would buy some but after requested CA.313, a bit better.

The Regia Aereonautica commander, at one time, accused Caproni industries to not have gave a single valid machine for the whole war. Not even Ca.314, a non-role aircraft.

I don't hope to 'show' something that perhaps is not liked and so not believed. I have already well understood what's the manners in wikipedia, and overall wiki.en. Whetever i say it's the same music: give me proof, even with the most trivial affermations, and italian aeronautics is my specialization.

The principle of 'presume good faith' is definitively reversed presume the guy is a SOB. Amusing, and i am actually amused. S. M. (buttons on virtual screen not funcitions, sorry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::Thank you for the references. Could you add them to the text that you added to the Caproni Ca.310 article? That was pretty much all that was needed, citations are always very nice to have. Thanks again. Manxruler 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::If I in any way offended you by asking for citations, then I'm sorry. It was not my intention to do any such thing. I just strongly feel that citations are a vital part of making Wikipedia a better place and that any contribution should be escorted by proper citations. Manxruler 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::Hi again. I can't find the Gustin Aviation Encyclopedia online. Please help me out with a link. Manxruler 07:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

No not you are irritating. It's an old history with Mr Bzuk, BillBC and some others that make my life here almost as impissible.

The problem about citation is that i could simply give and even translate the stuff i have, but even this could be disputed by someone. Even Joe Baugher site and Tom Cooper are 'not enough' and this really speaks a volume about.

Gustin aviation encyclopedia is not currently available, indeed. I have downloaded this stuff in my PC being a prevident one. I wish it will be soon available.

Pedriali about Ca.310: This was a modest light transport aircraft, ordered without a precise role. In Rome they thinks to made it in an attack aircraft, sobstiuting the more powerful Ba.65 Gen Porro, after seeing the inefficency that Ca.310 , -an gracius but delicate aircraft not suited for the task of assault machine-, gave to the 50 Stormo, ordered to replace them immmediatly with the Ba.65 still nor demolished and CR.32 with bombs. Just some examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::Good you're not harboring any ill feelings towards me. I have nothing to do with whatever it is you and the wikipedians you mentioned got going. I just like citations, is all. Be well. Manxruler 10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, perhaps i was not clear? I stated that you are not the problem, the problems are with other guys so i have started to began sensible to continous cit. needed and deletions. Not to sayng that you are the cause, just that this time is not too good for someone that call me about this or that. Sorry, it's the overall climate 'unfriendly' that often i feel inside wiki that make me a bit worry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::Hey, relax. I'm just saying that I didn't want to misunderstand or stress you out or anything like that. Its cool. I wasn't being critical, just asked a question earlier which you answered satisfactory. No problems, we're good. Manxruler 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Caproni Ca.310 again

Copyedit from my page: "Hi Bill. I've worked on the Caproni Ca.310 article recently. Could you drop by it and see if further wikifying is needed? I've rewritten most of it and provided citations the language and reference parts are good. Thanks in advance. Manxruler 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the help on this article, but I have some concerns with regards to the picture of a Ca.310 you uploaded. That's a Norwegian Ca.310. I think the picture is very likely to be Norwegian and hence does not fall under Italian copyright legislation... Manxruler 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I didn't notice that originally. I wonder if it could still have been a factory photo? Often aircraft under construction were painted to the owner's specifications before they left the factory. Regardless, I have substituted a new photograph in anticipation of someone challenging the photo. You did one super job on the article, you set up the sections nicely (it still needs some Imperial measures for the specifications template to work properly) but the big construction job is done; I merely came in to "sweep up." FWIW, send me an email, I would like to collaborate with you again. Bzuk 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jageren Æger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Manxruler 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your fine contributions to Norwegian articles and Norwegian military history in particular. Inge 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent Barnstar, Inge. I'm honored. Manxruler 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I tried to make the citations on the article Hans Reidar Holtermann more effective by using the <ref name= tool and most of the text of the article became invisible. Why did that happen? See this to see what I'm talking about. Manxruler 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly because you have an unclosed <ref> tag; I'll have a look at the article now. --ais523 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that you wrote <ref name= "Mil.no">; you should have written <ref name="Mil.no"/> (notice the extra slash at the end of the ref tag). This catches quite a few users out; hope that helps! --ais523 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A question - why did you chose to delete the address by Joachim von Ribbentrop to diplomatic and press representatives in Berlin on April 10, 1940, explaining the German invasion of Norway? I reverted your edit as it was without reason and detrimental to the article. Manxruler 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been deleted from Wikisource due to missing translator information. Dead links are less than informative. Should have said that in the edit, I suppose. 85.112.147.118 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, of course. Thank you for the clarification. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you reverted my clarification You are aware that aa bridge such as the Storstømsbro must be attacked from land by parachutists? and that the attack was made at the fortress and landing of the bridge at Masnedø? Are you sure that there were two airfields at Ålborg? Kamp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.185.43 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I'm not sure what your saying right now, the point is that none of the clarifications you made are supported by the source. And that's all that matters. Manxruler (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am guessing that i lit up your watchlist? LA2 highlighted the problem at the WP:MILHIST talkpage, through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. I was happy to oblige!!! Woodym555 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manxruler! I noticed your contributions to a ship article, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Ships, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of ships of all kinds. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Maralia 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I hope you are feeling much better very soon. Maralia 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just overwrote and redid some of your edits to Battle of Drøbak sound - I'd made but not saved a lot of small changes of my own and it was easier to merge your changes into mine than vice-versa. I think I've merged everything you did, but you might like to check it. Thanks, Ben Aveling 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know when you're done and I can check it again. Cheers, Ben Aveling 08:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your intervention in the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 article through your gentle prodding and pointed questions has resolved a long-standing issue that has plagued many of the submissions provided with inadequate or incomplete reference citations. I have a comparable, albeit lengthy list of other concerns (just kidding, but drop me an email, see Bzuk, we were meaning to talk, if you recall). FWIW Bzuk 14:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Copyedit from my page: "Hi again, Bill. Yup, we were going to talk. I would have gotten an email here and everything a long time ago too, but you see I have some health issues these days, of unknown seriousness, so I kinda don't make any promises about anything right now. When I get better we'll definitely talk. Manxruler 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Manx, no problem, first things first and your health is more important than anything else. Take care of yourself. FWIW, my best wishes go with you. Bzuk 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may like to view this contribution list. The editor appears to regard WWII resistance organisations (including Scandinavian) as "terrorists" and has added categories to reflect this. Your opinion? Folks at 137 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the info about southwestern spelling. I normally don't change the spelling if the alternative is correct. Actually both are correct! See: south-western. MS Word spellchecker marked it as incorrect for British English, but I see now it's acceptable for U.S. English. I'll leave them as is from now on. Regards, JohnI (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:::

Hi John,

No problem, if the British English version is south-western, then south-western it is. I've been subjected to too many variants of the English language to edit only in British English or only in American English. Its all a mix. Thanks for spell checking my work. Manxruler (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Being a speaker of Australian English, (a British variant), I've become resolved to the idea that we'll all be using American English in the future. They have the weight of numbers compared to British speakers. So I accept either for the time being... Re: the spellchecks, no worries mate! <-- Australian colloquialism :-) Regards, JohnI (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied::::I guess you have a good point there; with the worldwide cultural influence and number of people in the US American English certainly has an advantage. However, I have now acquired the "English (Britain)"-version of the firefox spell checker so I hope that will help me in writing less American and more British, after all the English I was taught in school was British English. I'd like to keep my English fairly British and I think this new spell checker will help. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. Please feel free to put everything back where it was originally on the 'Outer Hebrides' page. It will not be changed again TonyDodson (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied::::Thanks for being so understanding. Your wildlife book might very well be a very good addition to the article, it merely needsto be added with sufficient detail and in the proper way. The conventional way to add a book is: Author. "Title". Place of publication. Publisher, year. ISBN. (if avaiable) Just use that recipe and everyone is happy. Manxruler (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit: "Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Hi Manx (sorry don't know your real name just your "nom de plume"), thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "Reggiane Re.2000" citation/reference note. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. The entry should have appeared as <ref>Henriksson, Lars. ''Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)''. Ljungskile, Sweden: Avrosys.nu,[[29 June]] [[2005]] [http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)]</ref> (Henriksson, Lars. Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945). Ljungskile, Sweden: Avrosys.nu,29 June 2005 J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945))If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet. His guideline would look like this example: <ref> [http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)]</ref> (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) which is what I used. I know it is not technically correct but it is one of the "jury-rigged" adaptations that works out well. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the verbiage above and your note on my talk page: "Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.

As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)",

Yes, Manx, I agree that the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied::::Good, agreed. But why is "<ref> [http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)]</ref>" better than "<ref>Avrosys.nu: [http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)]</ref>"? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the simpler form should predominate. Not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. If it hasn't already been changed, please feel free to revise the notation in the Re 200 article. BTW, thanks for the reminder, I sometimes don't notice the request for information if it is attached to an earlier "string" on my talk page. Bzuk 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Manxruler: I see that you reverted me [5] at History of the Jews in Norway, but you have not understood that a new category has been created that has changed things. Please see Talk:History of the Jews in Norway#This article and its own category. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied::::Hi IZAK. Thanks for explaining the category edit to me. I now understand the intention and apologize for the revert. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, I only rarely lurk these days. I probably found the image through Google image search. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied::::I'll see if I can track the source down. Norwegian copyright laws are quite liberal, but I need to know the source. Thanks for the information.

{{helpme}} I have over some time uploaded a number of images to English Wikipedia, but since recently I have begun to make use of Wikimedia. How can I move the images I have uploaded here over to Wikimedia?

Also, most of the images I have uploaded here have been tagged with the wrong Copyright tags, as I initially believed that many were copyrighted when they were actually PD. Manxruler (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's no "move" function per se. What you'll have to do is download the images locally, and reupload them to the Commons. While you're doing that you can update the template to reflect the correct status. Once that's done, you can use {{ncd}} to have the original WP image deleted (see instructions here, section III), or wait for a bot to clean up after you; I think such a bot exists. --DeLarge (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Dombås, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You commented at DYK that my nom of Capitol Offense (band)did not have any "in-text citations." It has several, including one directly for the hook I proposed. Could you explain what you were referring to, since my nom is set to expire soon, and having that comment floating out there can't help what might otherwise be an attractive hook. Bellwether ^B_C 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Hi Bellwether. I can understand your frustration when you saw what appeared to be a comment by me with regards to your nominated article supposedly lacking in in-text citations.

However, I have never made any such statement with regards to your article. None at all. The comment you reacted to was directed at this nomination: "...that William Melmoth's 1711 work The Great Importance of a Religious Life Consider'd went through thirty editions and sold over 420,000 copies by the end of the century? (self-made) Geogre (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" that was located right below you.

After that nomination led to a DYK it disappeared from the "Template talk:Did you know", but for some reason my comment did not. Due to what was probably a malfunction in the system the comment remained and seemed aimed at your nomination, which it never was. I see that your nomination still went through fine and hope you did not have much trouble due to this event, even though it never, at any point, was due to any mistake of mine. The article I left the comment about was not yours and did not include in-text citations. System failure was behind this one. Have a good day and keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been through a DYK nomination before (the other article I wrote that made it was nommed by someone else), so I was just kind of confused. Now worries! -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Ronaldsway, 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.

Interesting fact about finding the mass grave! --Royalbroil 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been sorted out. Manxruler (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} When I try to edit the article Hammerfest I'm refused to save my edit due to a "Blacklisted Hyperlink". What's wrong? Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you tying to add a link? It might be blacklisted. Soxred93 | talk bot 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not trying to add a link. Just trying to do a normal edit, in this case alphabetizing the list of notable people from Hammerfest. Yesterday I tried to move an image slightly, and got the same message. Manxruler (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This only happens when I attempt to edit Hammerfest. Manxruler (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message says the link "birdwatch.brinkster.net" is what triggered it. I've never heard about it before. Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link has been there for years, it turns out. I don't know who added it. Should I remove it? I doesn't seem like spam to me. Manxruler (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be an the Blacklist, as far as I can see. Manxruler (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist - It's there : \bbirdwatch\.brinkster\.net\b You could remove the link, which will allow you to save the page. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Well, you probably know better, being a Norwegian and all, but cannon caliber is measured in millimeters (and inches). Can you specify how this particular cannons are special? 2) While the designated names of military formations are usually capped, I didn't see this used for individual weapons systems. Besides, the guns' names are also mentioned... --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied -Just as an example; Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Kystartilleriet 100 år" - THE book on Norwegian coastal artillery - constantly refers to the Kopås guns as 15 cm guns and the Main Battery guns as 28 cm guns, while the Husvik battery pieces are referred to as 57 mm guns. This is how Norwegian coastal artillery calibres are designated in all Norwegian texts, several of which are written by military officers. The line seems to go somewhere around 7 cm/70 mm, seeing as Norwegian 65 mm guns are labelled with millimetres, while 7,5 cm guns are labelled with centimetres. What does the gun names have to do with anything? Manxruler (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied -:Example from the text of Fjeld's book: "-Königsberg (light cruiser) suffered three hits from 21 cm shells, the most serious penetrating the engine room without exploding. The two other hits rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The number of dead and wounded is not known. All the hits came from the 21 cm battery at Kvarven." (from the German attack on Bergen 9 April, 1940.) 21 cm rounds from the 21 cm battery. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I suppose Norwegian military has its own point of view on standard caliber units. I just never heard of cannon calibers being measured in cm, hence my "standardizing" edit.

The names part address the way "Main Battery" should be written - with capital letters, as a name, or small letters, as a weapons system. --Illythr (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied -:Yes, Norway is different in many ways. Still, the Brits seem to accept our standards. Dildy, Douglas C. Denmark and Norway, 1940: Hitler's Boldest Operation; Osprey Campaign Series #183; ISBN 9781846031175. Osprey Publishing, 2007 uses the same exact system. Manxruler (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wanted to see. Thanks, no more questions. --Illythr (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to direct your attention to WP:FLAG, specifically flagicons should not be used in connection with place of birth and death. In conjunction with awards and honours it should be fine, though. __meco (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it. I will modify my edits accordingly, I only used the flag icons for birth/death locations after seeing it used that way somewhere on Wikipedia. Now that I know what's proper procedure I I will of course follow it. Manxruler (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with this article, I do appreciate it. I am not a native speaker of English, and your input is much appreciated by me. Tymek (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Glad to help out. I'm not a native English speaker either, and I'm fully aware of the grammatical differences between for example Polish and English. Czortkow Uprising is an interesting article on a subject I haven't heard of before. Manxruler (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I thought you were a native, but it does not matter. Are you interested in Polish history or was this edit random? Tymek (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedMy edits weren't completely random, no. I'm a World War II historian, and I've had a certain interest for Polish 20th century history ever since reading a work on WWII by a Polish author like 15 years ago. Also, I've read quite a bit on the Polish Independent Highland Brigade which fought at the Battles of Narvik together with Polish naval ships such as ORP Grom. Manxruler (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see -- "a Tromsø, Norway gun shop." LOL! I thought it meant this was the name for a Norwegian gun shop. ;-D Very sorry. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedThat's perfectly ok. I got a bit confused when I saw the new caption, but I realised that it had to be a mix-up when I saw the edit was by an established user as yourself. If you click the Tromsø wikilink you'll see that its the capital of Troms county in North Norway. I don't think we have any articles on Norwegian gun shops, perhaps since they are not organized in chains or anything like that. The Hakapiks are displayed on the wall of that gun shop due to Tromsø being the main centre of the seal processsing industry in Norway, its were all the sealing boat come in to sell their catch. Keep up the good work and have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive criticism of the references in the Daisy Harriman page. I think I've succeeded in making the two types of improvements you've suggested. I'll keep watching in case I haven't. Wikijsmak (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedHi Jsmak. Yep, you've made the improvements I suggested. The only further thing I'd recommend is to add an Infobox Person to the article. Great article, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedHi again. I'd just like to congratulate you on the DYK and tell you that I think the article look really great. Keep up the good work! Manxruler (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willis Lent, 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.

You did significant help improving this article. Without you it wouldn't have been featured, so I felt it was appropriate to give you DYK credit for your help expanding the article. --Royalbroil 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedThank you very much, Royal. I do appreciate it. Manxruler (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manxruler, ship articles created from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships do not need inline citations, because they are virtually word-for-word cut-and-pastes from the original source. There are literally thousands of such articles on Wikipedia, and none of them have citation tags for that very reason. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedThank you for informing me of this particular system. How is one to know what parts of the article is from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships? Although an article is based on this dictionary I assume it is still fully possible to edit the article and thus making it less a word-for-word cut-and-paste from the original source? Manxruler (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure you can edit the article, and a little bit of sprucing up usually needs to be performed. But virtually all the information for these US Navy ship articles comes from DANFS, so citations as a general rule are regarded as redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your dedication in updating references in general and in the Vardøhus Fortress article in particular. I can't locate my copy of Christian 4.s Finnmarkreise in 1599 so am unable to give you a page citation; however this text can be confirmed from other sources, if you judge it is urgent. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedThanks for the appreciation. No, its no hurry at all. I'll find a source in a week's time. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). Numbers are also expressed as words if they are the beginning of a sentence such as: "Ten ducks crossed the street." That's from the style manual, still hasn't changed as far as I know. Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

RepliedThanks for the info, Bill. Manxruler (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise. Have added her to the list of ship launches in 1942 as well. Hopefully she will stay there! Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedYep, that list seems to include ALL ships launched that year, so that work out just fine. By the way, what exactly is the notability of this ship? Manxruler (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm, aren't all ships notable? There nothing in the notability guidelines on Transportation about ships. Anyway, Empire Galahad was a war veteran, surviving at least four convoys (I can add brief details to the article if desired). All Navy ships qualify on notability grounds, so the same should apply for the Merchant Navy. If the MS Celtic Star can have an article, so can the SS Celtic Star! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedThat's good and fine then. Add those things to the article and that'll be great. Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Armed Merchant Ships qualify for the list of WW2 ships? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedNo, they do not qualify to that list. Most merchant ships were armed anyway from a certain point during World War II. Anti-aircraft guns and in some cases anti-surface guns were very common amongst WWII merchantmen. However, merchant raiders and auxiliary cruisers qualify as they were simply merchantmen converted into warships. The reason we excluded merchant ships from the list is that if let them in then the list would potentially include thousands of ships. Also, merchant ships and warships probably should have separate lists anyway. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied I suppose you were referring to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've added the convoy details to the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Good edit. The article is much better now. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link to the DEMS has just given me an idea for another article. The SS Glitra should be more than noteworthy enough! Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great ref! I take it the book is in Norwegian. If you don't mind, I'll change the ref format. I find Harvard referencing awkward. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks. Yep, the book is in Norwegian. I was reading about the 125 year history of Norwegian torpedo boats when I came across this mention. Go ahead, change the format if you like. I've always had a good relationship with the Harvard style myself, but do as you like. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it. Could you please check the details are correct. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Looks correct to me. Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, your edit summaries are confusing me. When you signed one off with 'then we'll need more than a single in-text citation' after I had wikified it, it sounded like you were looking for reasons to put a template on it, and seemed put out that I had taken one off. I am aware of the use of templates, and welcome their use in this instance to improve the article, but perhaps edit summaries can be fraught with misinterpretations? Benea (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied I'm sorry if I confused you. I simply added the second template to underline that more citations were in fact needed. Citations are a vital part wikifying an article, as the Wikify template states, thus I only added the "Wikify" template to begin with. Wikifying is about more than just wikilinks. I wasn't "looking for reasons to add templates" to the article, I don't do that. I simply stated that more citations were needed, nothing more, nothing less. Now that the citations are in place there's no need for more templates. I hope that cleared things up and that you're not habouring any ill will towards me. Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British and so can hate with the best of them. And in common with my race I also struggle when deprived of the usual tonal inflections, facial expressions and secret handshakes of everyday interaction, and have to rely on interpreting cold text. I assumed that there was something I wasn't quite grasping, so I'll put the duelling swords away and no harm done. Pip pip, Benea (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied I do appreciate it. Swords officially put away. Keep up the good work and have nice evening. Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Sæl, 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.

--Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this article - I have added this DYK hook into rotation at Portal:Norway. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed these were your contributions, but I had already added Trygg class torpedo boat and HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) into rotation as WP:DYKs at Portal:Norway as well, great work! Cirt (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks for the positive feedback, Cirt. I really enjoyed writing those articles and I've got many more on my to do-list. I'm a big fan of your work on Portal:Norway/DYK, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for saying so, and thanks for your work too. If you are going to work on more potential Norway-DYKs feel free to drop me a note when they successfully appear at T:DYK - I usually notice it but sometimes I miss an update here and there. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied No problem at all, will drop you a notice if and when. I'm going to be busy IRL for a while now so it might take some time but I'll get to it. Manxruler (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had not noticed that one, added it into rotation. One more for another set of 3. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only picture I can find of him is (I'm pretty sure) copyrighted. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi there, very nice article you've got going. So the image you've found isn't PD-Russia? Manxruler (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it had to be an earlier photo... Then it probably is PD (taken during the war, not sure by whom); it's located here, if you want to take a look before I upload it. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Yeah. That's the same image I found when I googled Sidenko. I'm pretty sure that's PD-Russia. Go ahead, upload, to Commons if you have a page there. Manxruler (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I'm not too familiar with Commons. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied That's fine, it was my pleasure. Are you going to add an infobox to the article too? Manxruler (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten. I added the "Military Person" infobox, as I couldn't find anything more specific. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Military person sounds right. By the way, the image is the official portrait taken of Sidorenko after he received the Hero of the Soviet union medal, according to this book. Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, missed that. :/ Well, thanks for all the help with the article; is there anything else amiss? · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RepliedNothing more that I can see. We might add some headlines, but that'll be a bit hard seeing as we really only know of his wartime exploits. Otherwise there would be room for stuff like "early years" and post-war life" etc. Manxruler (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are right... I actually remember that dilemma. I was at first convinced it was king as several sources used that, but I remember changing my mind when the source I found to be more credible used kong and most of teh ones using king were english. Also you have the tendancy even among semiprofessional norwegian historians etc to give much more credit to english sources than to Norwegian. And of course in the field of military history espeshially naval history in Norway a lot of the published books are by one off authors who have a particular interest in the matters (retired officers etc). My point is that it is not easy to get such minor facts right in such an environment. Maybe the Naval Museum have the documentation to give the definitive answer. In any case both names have been used. Inge (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi again. All my sources are Norwegian, and all by people closely connected to the RNoN. They're the same as are used as in-text citations in the article. What sources did you find that used Kong? As far as I remember you only listed some WWII forum in the sources section. Manxruler (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't remember. I hope its that one since that seems to be the one most used, but I also see the possibility of it originating from a misunders