User talk:Oshah

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Oshah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! Emmett5 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders of World War II

Really nice table Oshah, thanks, great proper start to the page! MarkThomas 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a good idea to have so many [citation needed] in article? I think it should be used only if something is disputed.--Staberinde 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mixing WP:NOR with WP:NPOV.

As it says in those policy pages, any major edit which does not have a source can be deleted in Wikipedia. Anyway, if something is not disputed, it should be quite easy to find a source on it (actually, what will be difficult, is finding a source which can cover up multiple facts, rather than just one sentence).

Citing our sources serves another important purpose for this article. It helps us weed out the notable commanders from the non-notable ones (if your commander is not mentioned in the major works, does he really deserve to be listed?).

What I have done is identify all the facts which are yet to be verified, so that when they are identified, we can safely remove the {{unsourced}} tag. Personally, I prefer the page as it is, rather than a blanket "this article needs more references" statement at the start without giving an indication which particular facts are unsourced.

Also, when references are found for the statement, I agree, that we should present that reference more sparingly (such as the entry for montgomery) --Oshah 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have put [citation needed] in every possible sentence. Heh, seems that even existence of Kuznetsov and Rydz-Śmigły is also disputed as they have that even at their names. In my opinion it makes article just plain ugly. Theorietically of course every damn award and participation in some battle can be sourced but it would take a lot of time(and about 500+ sources).--Staberinde 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we continue, are you ok if we continue discussing this issue on my talk page? (I don't know if you're properly notified on any changes) --Oshah 12:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, im fine with it.--Staberinde 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About tagging every sentence. I agree that they make the article ugly. However, I don't think the best way to deal with that ugliness is to remove those tags blindly, because we would then risk passing off unencyclopedic/unverifiable content as verified (and in my view, one ~~line~~sentence of unverifiable content in wikipedia is far uglier than ten thousand of those [citation needed] tags ever will be). However, to make the end result more readable, I've replaced those [citation needed] with [verification needed]. This should hopefully, make your fact-checking task easier to do (maybe a wikilink will be sufficient for verification, although WP:RS disagrees).

About tagging Kuznetsov and Rydz-Śmigły. I could not find an entry for them in the oxford companion. This could mean:

They are present, but I am not looking hard enough for them. Perhaps I should look under a different spelling/entry? (such as with Vatutin/Mao Tse-tung).
They aren't present, because the book I'm using isn't reliable enough. Despite being endorsed as one of the most reliable sources in the main WWII article, it could still miss some commanders out (maybe because of it being a paper encyclopedia), but that's all the more reason for you to provide a source which does mention Kuznetsov/Rydz-Śmigły as a notable commander.
They aren't present, because the commanders aren't truly notable. Now if this is the case (Not being sourced is a good reason for a commander not to be notable, at least in wikipedia), it is grounds for us to remove that person from this list. The commanders that have their names tagged, are people I cannot verify to be notable, hence question if they really ARE notable.

On your final point, this point has already been discussed on Talk:Commanders of World War II#Germany. The solution is to stick to just a few references, and list all our commanders using just those sources. --Oshah 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That what makes commander "notable" is problematical to say. For example Polish generals: Edward Rydz-Śmigły(invasion of poland) who wasn't in your book commanded a lot bigger armed forces in bigger scale campaing then Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski(warsaw uprising) who probably was there(as he isn't tagged). Also probably many chinese and japanese land commanders are not well known in west but that doesn't mean that they didn't fought large scale battles or campaings. But that's quite small part of problem, other part is sourceing all those n+1 awards, fates and other information. We agreed to discuss it here but now I thought that maybe it would be better to copy-paste that discussion to article's talk and also ask opinions of other users that have shown some interest to article(MarkThomas and Haber) as I am not sure what's best solution. Do you agree?--Staberinde 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss it here or on the talk page (I don't really mind where). You are right, I was able to source Komorowski but not Śmigły. The only explanation I can think of why they think Komorowski was more notable was that Komorowski had more significant influence with the Polish resistance and the government, whereas Rydz kind of faded after his country was defeated. You may also have a point that the book is primarily anglo-centric (it details people like Mountbatten, Leigh-Mallory, Auchinleck, Percival, though the first three I think should really be added).

On Kuznetsov, I'm beginning to doubt his notability. He's not sourced, he's not mentioned in either the Battle of Caucasus or Operation Barbarossa. Heck, he's not even mentioned in the Hero of the Soviet Union article. He sounds like a perfect candidate for removal. --Oshah 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I copyed our discussion about references to [1].--Staberinde 11:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FilePermsBox

FilePermsBox does not seem to be Vista/Windows 7 compatible. Can you bring your website back somewhere and make an updated version available? - xpclient ^Talk 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Overlord

I have been cleaning up the citations in Operation Overlord I noticed while doing it that some of citations were added by you back in October 2007. Please could you please have a look at the article and fill out the article names for the two nearly complete, The Oxford Companion to World War II entries. There is a third entry which did not have an article name, author or a page number, would you be able to fix that one? -- PBS (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're still interested in this, but I think this would have referred to the Oxford Companion to World War II, of which my ISBN is 0-19-280666-1. The page numbers would have been the references to the articles in question. Example: the first reference TOCTWW2A, would have been "Normandy Campaign" -- Oshah (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one which I think needs sorting out is Wilmot. Your original inclusion date it 1952 but you included the ISBN 1853266779 which is for the 1997 publication. could it be that shoudl have been origyear=1952 year=1997 ? -- PBS (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of the book would probably have been the 1997 edition (not sure if I have it anymore). --Oshah (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Oshah. You have new messages at Talk:Normandy landings.
Message added 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBaK (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:

The items in each list should use bullets, not section headers. Please see Help:List

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oshah! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy (July 10)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Clarityfiend was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Fails WP:LISTN. Nobody else compiles lists like this.

Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy

Hello, Oshah. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of terms related to the Battle of Normandy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UEFA Pro Licence holders has been nominated for deletion

Category:UEFA Pro Licence holders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]