User talk:Michael Dorosh/Archive 2

Operation Atlantic

Hi, I'm writing to you as you are a Canadian military history buff. There does not appear to be a page for Operation Atlantic (the Canadian operation run in parallel to Operation Goodwood in Normandy 1944). This seems a bit of a shame, so if you know someone with the inclination and resources to fill this gap, that would be great; if you are not interested, then, obviously, that's fine by me. MAG1 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your images from Canadiansoldiers.com

Hi. I was going through the non-free image tags this evening fixing some problems and noticed that you uploaded a handful of images awhile back under a non-free license. You indicate on many of the images that use the template {{Canadiansoldiers.com Image}} that you are the author and that you are releasing them for use on Wikipedia only. My understanding is that this class of image is not permitted on Wikipedia. Since you are the original license, would you consider releasing them under a more-free license? BigDT 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't.Michael Dorosh 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... unless I'm missing something, everything uploaded either as "non-commercial" or "permission only" after May 2005 is supposed to be speedy deleted. Is this your understanding as well? Forgive me if you have answered these questions before ... but is there a reason under WP policies that they should not be deleted? BigDT 04:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric:insane

The correlation was referenced by Jack Pallace in a segment of Ripley's Belive it or not. Also, I was very briefly in the service. My superiors and a base doctor said I was eccentric -- they gave me the boot. -- Jason Palpatine 11:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be one of those American/British English gulfs, then; I've never seen the word used on official paperwork in that manner, nor used in the manner you indicate. I guess I just learned something, then. Thanks! :-) Michael Dorosh 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with copy edits

Hello
I read you good work copy editing the Second Battle of Smolensk, please feel free to do the same to all or one of the short stubs I have created.
Thanks
See the list here: Trade2tradewell 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Stephen Colbert

...Wikipedia is run on consensus, but its factual content is certainly not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you know of an article that determined something was true by consensus and not verification, please point it out so that we can apply the appropriate smackdown. Melchoir 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had stated that badly. My point is that if people truly believe something to be true - and can find a way to verify it such that Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, notability, NPOV, et al are satisfied - then the weight of their evidence etc. will win out over those who oppose that viewpoint - even if they too can present evidence. Actually, in reality both POV would probably be allowed to be presented in an article where two such competing POV prevailed. Anyway, interesting stunt...will be interesting to see what the Lutherans have to say about all this - I suspect there will be some fast and furious editing in the next day or so - unless they are too busy cleaning up vandalism.:-) Michael Dorosh 06:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never know whether to be pleased or annoyed when Wikipedia draws this kind of attention. Were you around for the whole Penny Arcade / He-Man fiasco? In retrospect it was amusing, but it sure sucked at the time! Melchoir 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed that - and now my curiousity is aroused...Michael Dorosh 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a record at Talk:He-Man#Hahaha, but really all you have to do to understand the situation completely is check out [1] and then think for two seconds about human nature. Melchoir 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - never had He-Man as a kid, though fondly remember Filmation. Thanks for the links.Michael Dorosh 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queeg

You wrote: "the ship was ordered to go to the LOD; it was always supposed to 'withdraw', Queeg simply turned back early."

Would you please tell me where it says that in the book? I wish to look it up. --Jason Palpatine 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy near to hand; the best source I have is the movie, but logic from what is already in the wikipedia article would suggest it is so. Consider: what was the Caine's mission? They were to escort the Marines to the line of departure; once there, what would a destroyer/minesweeper be doing? They would at some point turn back and rejoin the fleet rather than stay on station. What happened in the event was that the Caine turned around early - Queeg used the rangefinder, gave a false reading, and ordered the ship to turn back. And again, the officers were left in doubt as to whether or not the captain had actually chickened out under fire - in the film version at least, no one else had access to the range finder. So it is all a bit ambiguous, just like the rest of Queeg's activities. The article as written makes it much less ambiguous and makes Queeg out to have simply turned tail and ran, when in fact his orders actually required him to turn tail and run - the dispute was whether or not he did it too soon, leaving the Marines without escort.Michael Dorosh 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

once there, what would a destroyer/minesweeper be doing? you ask. My father served on a Gleves class destroyer during WW2. What they would do is hold station and fire (using the ship's 5-inch guns) on the enemy shore positions to support the men landing AND the fellow ships who were all taking fire from shore.-- Jason Palpatine 02:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if you have the book at hand, I'd double check it. The beauty of Wouk's writing was that everything Queeg did was ambiguous. It was certainly portrayed that way in the movie. If I have time I'll dig out my copy and cite the on-screen dialogue - IIRC it makes it quite clear that the Caine was expected to turn back after escorting the Marines in.Michael Dorosh 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Dukes of Hazzard

You are absolutely correct on the Dukes date - that was a misprint on my part - Mego actually had the toy license for figures - the Remco items were of ancillary type - like cloth bags and cheap carded toys with the confederate flag as a logo. The date should have been 1981 - I'll correct it.

-- John

Sounds good John - good work on that article by the way.Michael Dorosh 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilt accessories

I will try to track down the regulations regarding underwear in Highland athletic competitions. It may depend on the governing organization under whose regulations the competition is being held and that may vary depending on the particular Games. However, at all the Games I have attended, and all I have heard of, the competitors all wore underwear (no, I didn't check with a mirror, but I take photos and the lycra shorts show through, especially in those events which involve spinning, such as the hammer throw).

As far as I know, all Highland dance events at least iin the United States, are governed by SOBHD regulations which require shorts. SOBHD is also the main governing organization worldwide (at least 2/3 of all Highland dance competitions). I believe the other, rival, governing orgs also require shorts of some kind.

Accoutrements or accessories? I don't know, but the lead paragraph mentions both terms so I thought that should cover it.

It is my understanding that in the late-17th and early-18th centuries, underwear was considered an exclusively women's accoutrement. The Highland regiments which adopted the kilt then did not wear underwear (because underwear was for women). And that, as I understand it, is where the custom of "going regimental" started. Again, I'll try to track down a reference for this. I honestly don't know what the current military regulations regarding underwear are. JFPerry 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in The Calgary Highlanders since 1987 and still serving. There are no regulations. It's expected among peers, I think, that soldiers go regimental, but officially there is no policy.

I wouldn't consider underwear an "accoutrement" either; it is kind of irrelevant as it doesn't form a specific part of Highland Dress. I think the article may overemphasize the importance of same. It's like saying underwear is an accessory to a Tuxedo. Who would really think about it, moreover, who would mention it in an encyclopedia article on Tuxedos? :-) If you can find references, that will be a great addition to the article, but it also seems like a magician giving away his secrets, in a way.Michael Dorosh 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on underwear, I am in complete concurrance! JFPerry 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Medical Centre

Hi, you reverted my removal of two images. Could you please explain why you think Image:Patient Care Foothills Hospital Calgary 1966.jpg is ineligible for copyright protection? Please add such reasoning to the image description page. Also, did you intend to put back Image:FOOTHILLS.jpg, or was that just an accident when re-adding the other image? --Rob 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is ineligible for copyright - the company that produced the pamphlet no longer exists, and the item itself was a press release pam.Michael Dorosh 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dennehy

Thanks for putting "Sergeant Ned T" back in. I should have thought of that myself. I moved the sentence down a bit. It's better to mention Dennehy's breakthough role first, I think. Hope you'll agree. Fwend 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, you've made some very useful edits there. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 23:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW2

Comic book language... you are probably right. I thought it was getting a bit boring and wanted to liven it up. Wallie 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admirable intent, but not really the idea of an encyclopedia. :-) Michael Dorosh 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoB episodes

Great re-writes. You are definitely capturing the essence of the episodes. --Habap 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - didn't mean to rewrite so completely, but the current descriptions have some inaccuracies in them. Thanks for your comments, makes it worthwhile.Michael Dorosh 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Forums

See Wikipedia:External links - specifically what you should generally not link to, which says basically unless there's a real urgent need, don't link to forums. An article on Slashdot.org might link to forums, however, this is a highly exceptional case (i.e. it's about a website that's basically just forums). WilyD 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the army.ca case, they seem to be going a little nuts there, but it's not an in principle violation of the ideas above - specifically, an article about a forum would reasonably link to that forum. WilyD 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help - interesting reading, and very helpful - clears up a couple misperceptions I had about your comments at Talk:Canada as well.Michael Dorosh 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. It may also be worth noting that Canada is a featured class article, and thus we really try to keep it to a very high standard, that many other articles may not hold (but should aspire to). WilyD 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Video Game Article

Hey! I saw that you created a new video game related article- consider joining the Computer and Video Games WikiProject! I have added your article to the list of new articles, and attributed it to you. --PresN 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the invite; I don't think I'd have anything to add to the project, but I'll certainly add what I can to related pages when I have the time and proper resources. Just noticed my copy of the book on the shelf and thought it would useful and the info about it of interest. Glad someone noticed it. :-) Must have been one of my fav books 20 years ago, my copy is definitely dog-eared and well used, and I recall buying it new from a drug store.Michael Dorosh 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metre vs Meter

Hi. Please do not revert corrections to non-USA articles using the correct form of metre versus the Americanized meter. The convention is to use metre for non-USA articles. RedWolf 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the policy page where that is stated, please?Michael Dorosh 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement implies that SI is preferred for non-USA articles. Also, note that this page uses metre, not meter in the body text. Finally, most articles on mountains not in the USA use metres. As I said, it's a convention and there may not be a strict policy. This convention provides consistency across articles. RedWolf 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting on SS Talk Page

Thanks for your assistance with the ranting anon ip user who recently visited the SS page. He seems intent on having his dialouge posted at the top of the talk page, so I guess it can stay. if this guy starts making article edits, though, they will have to be watched since a lot of it seems like semi-revisionism. Thanks again for your help. -Husnock 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to assist. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.Michael Dorosh 14:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 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 -- 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helldiver

Your disambig page works fine for me. --ScienceApologist 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton

Hi, Michael. I just wanted to give my reason for going with a shorter version of the War Comics section. The Charlton article doesn't list dates and issues #s for any other genre of its comics — indeed, that'd be a near-endless and unwieldy list, given the maybe couple hundred titles Charlton published — so to do so for just one genre isn't really justfiable from an encyclopedic standpoint.

I thought that leaving the section and the image gallery might be a workable compromise/solution, since the article could be expanded to include a paragraph each about its other genres without this becoming a book. :-) How does that sound? --Tenebrae 06:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why a lack of information in some sections of an article justified the removal of information from other, better researched sections. Dates and number of issues seems directly related to me to the popularity and longevity of the titles. If that information is lacking for other genres, then I'd suggest other researchers aren't keeping up...? I can't agree that less information is better, and I would further say that the dates of publication and the number of issues are non-trivial.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ID4

Fair enough. Good edit. BudMann9 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....a lot of these "trivia" sections in movie articles are really getting out of hand - every time the Simpsons makes the briefest homage to something, someone races to Wikipedia to cite it...ye Gods...Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Canadian (Armoured) Division

Oops, sorry about the gaffs. I'm just picking up most of this information from web sources, and I may have misinterpreted or over-extrapolated something. Please correct according to your judgment. Thanks for the kind words about the Worthy article. Fill in what you can; there's still plenty missing and I'm researched out for the night. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-09-09 02:26 Z

Trivia

Is it really your position that no articles in Wiki should include Trivia sections? With regards to films especially, I find such sections illuminating and they help to put context around the film's cultural impact. Do you have any comments here?DocEss 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Trivia for centralised discussion of this. If something genuinely helps to put "cultural impact" in context, then it isn't trivia, and there is no excuse for putting it in a bulleted list of indiscriminate information. If it is trivia, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Jkelly 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my" position, as noted above, it is a matter of WP policy.Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 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 - 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Abyssinia, Henry

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback, it always is nice to hear positive comments. Hotstreets 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embarassment

well, yeah. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of what I sometimes liked doing best: instead of fixing the problem, make the problem go away. No offense at all! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wahkeenah on MLB.COM

Hi Micheal. Thanks for your help in standing up for me regarding the URL history of MLB.COM. Wahkeenah's behaviours (I reviewed his statements left by others) are - in my opinion - unacceptable in Wikipedia's society. Rgl168 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

84th RHE

Why remove the Canadian tag for the 84th RHE? It is viewed as an ancestral unit to the Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Highlanders. It was raised primarily among loyal inhabitants of Canada. Its recruits settled mainly in Ontario and Nova Scotia. While it might have been paid by the United Kingdom, its history is very much a part of Canadian history and heritage.

Who are you and what are you talking about?Michael Dorosh^Talk 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

military history of Canada during Second World War

I made many edits to this article besides the few edits that involved World War II (the name of the article on this subject in WP) vs Second World War. If you have a problem with just chose changes, then you should re-edit those changes and not revert and destroy all my other edits. Thanks Hmains 03:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your other edits were extremely minor - commas and other stylistic points that aren't "necessary". If you feel strongly about them I'd say redo them, but really you could have checked the talk page prior to changing the name of the conflict, especially since the changes you made were not consistent with the name of the article itself. That should have been a big red flag right there.Michael Dorosh^Talk 10:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good copyedit is desired in WP, regardless of your 'not necessary' opinion' Thanks Hmains 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough Mall

Deleted as a copyvio for being rather too cloes to: http://www.marlboroughmall.com/images/mall_directory_images/mmap.gif Geni 06:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that still makes it a derivative work. Legally you could go to the mall and use GPS to make a map or do it the old fashioned way. That assumes that no more copyright laws turn up in the meantime (I don't make the rules I just inforce them in a resigned manner). I wouldn't hold out too much hope for Citizendium. Currently it appears that they many not view malls as significant enough for inclusion.Geni 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Michael Dorosh^Talk 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

I noticed you are using the reflist template. I just made this template the other day - thanks for using it! I have a question though, details are on Template Talk:Reflist if you're interested. --Anthony5429 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 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 21:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Paratrooper Image

I guess you were right about the paratrooper images. I shall take it off the talk page.Dukakis 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...what are you talking about?Michael Dorosh^Talk 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rank of "Highlander"?

Hi. Quick question: Are privates in Highland regts called "private" or "Highlander"? Thanks in advance. -- SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re) Canadian militia weapons ca. 1885

Michael, sorry to jump in on your talk page, but I thought you'd be the guy to ask. Do you know if the Martini-Henri rifle was widely used by the militia in the Northwest Rebellion of 1885? The sources I have at hand are unclear. Best, --Ggbroad 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)--129.100.242.227 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Calgary Wikipedia meetup

Just a reminder that the Calgary Wikipedia meetup is this Sunday, 2pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). —GrantNeufeld 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pancevo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pancevo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]