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:

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)

Untagged image[edit]

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)

?[edit]

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]

Mowe class destroyer?[edit]

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]

Good Day[edit]

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]

Day of shame[edit]

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]

German World War II destroyers - revert[edit]

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]

WWII Ships[edit]

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]

Re: HNoMS Olav Tryggvason[edit]

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]

HNoMS Olav Tryggvason[edit]

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]

Re: Swedish language tag[edit]

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]

Submarine Pennants[edit]

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]

HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892)[edit]

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)

Trygg class torpedo boat[edit]

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]

July 4th, 2007 DYK[edit]

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]

DYK[edit]

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]

Re:Infobox feet-meter converter[edit]

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)

Scandinavia WWII template[edit]

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]

Capital letters[edit]

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

Caproni Ca.310[edit]

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]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jageren Æger.jpg[edit]

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]

Barnstar[edit]

		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]

Help needed[edit]

{{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 (U T C)

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 (U T C)

Re: Operation Weserübung[edit]

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]

ISBN typos[edit]

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]

Invitation to join WikiProject Ships[edit]

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]

Please check[edit]

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]

Good on you[edit]

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]

WWII Resistance[edit]

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]

"HNoMS Nordkapp OPV" change - southwestern[edit]

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]

Outer Hebrides[edit]

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]

Citation style[edit]

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]

History of the Jews in Norway and its new category[edit]

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]

Høver M.F. 11[edit]

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.

Help needed on transfer of images[edit]

{{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]

DYK[edit]

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]

Comment at DYK[edit]

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]

No problem at all[edit]

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]

DYK[edit]

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]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg[edit]

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]

I need help with a "Blacklisted Hyperlink"[edit]

{{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]

Battle of Drøbak Sound[edit]

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]

Flagicons[edit]

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]

Czortkow Uprising[edit]

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]

Your note[edit]

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]

Harriman piece[edit]

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]

DYK[edit]

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]

Inline citations[edit]

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]

updating the references[edit]

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]

Numbers[edit]

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]

Empire Galahad[edit]

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]

SS Glitra[edit]

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]

Stalingrad Madonna[edit]

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]

DYK[edit]

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]

Ivan Sidorenko.[edit]

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]

HNoMS Kong Haakon[edit]

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 misunderstanding becoming spread. I'm not objecting. You're working on it and using the sources so you know better than me. Inge (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Yes, I've never actually heard of that ship being called Kong. A quick Google search revealed that Norwegian Wikipedia, not exactly noted for its reliability, uses Kong in its Look to Norway article, an article completely without sources. And then there's a naval fiction discussion forum and that's pretty much it. Manxruler (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK.[edit]

On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Sidorenko, 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.

Well done, here's your "credit." · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Thanks, I appreciate it. It was nice cooperating with you. Manxruler (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Hope to bump into each other again in the future. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Denmark[edit]

I know it is already partially covered, however, I feel that it deserves its own seperate article since it was a battle in itself. Do you have a suggestion? Do you want to delete the article or are you okay with it being the way it is now? Thanks (Red4tribe (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Replied No, I don't want it deleted at all. I actually thought of creating it myself a while ago. I agree that it deserves a separate article, even though the Danes only put up a couple of hours of fighting there's plenty of stuff that isn't covered by Weserübung. It just needs some references, is all, and there are some very good ones at the Weserübung article. Manxruler (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied When I have the time, probably within the next few weeks, I'll give you a hand with the article and do some work on it. For now, observe what I did with the three identical in-line citations, it's called ref name=. Manxruler (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing text[edit]

{{helpme}} Why is a lot of the article's text disappearing when I push any of the footnotes 12 to 22 at References section of the Hammerfest article?

I am not sure I follow you. Can you reword the question? Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. When I look at Hammerfest, go down to the References headline at the bottom of the page and click for example note no. 20: "Knudsen 2006: 133" then all of a sudden the whole part of the page below "References" disappears, no more "Literature" and no more "External links". Its not permanent, just until I reload the page, still its very annoying. Manxruler (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it works after you reload, I'd have to say it's a browser problem. It displays fine for me, so I don't really know. Sorry. You may want to try clearing your cache, but I don't know what else to suggest. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help[edit]

I apologize for being late on this, but thanks for your help on the Martial van Schelle article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi Chris. You're welcome. Neat article, by the way. Did you by any chance find out exactly why the Germans arrested mr. van Schelle? Manxruler (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find out why. It was not given in the first source I listed (in Dutch) or in the Belgian Ice Hockey Federation history. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied That's ok. It's still a fine article. You should add an infobox, though. I think an Infobox Person would be most suitable in this case. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HNoMS Honningsvåg[edit]

I have fixed some minor grammar issues in the article and promoted it to B Class for Military History. Nice research, great article about the life of a great ship! - Canglesea (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble moving images to Commons[edit]

{{helpme}} I'm having some trouble moving the images Image:Froeya-370 59037a.jpg and Image:Olav-Tryggvason-370 58332a.jpg to Commons. Metsbot is complaining something about "source information". Help anyone? Manxruler (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done The images have been moved to Commons via CommonsHelper. --cmelbye (^t/_c) 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know they have been copied to Commons, I did do that. I'm just wondering why Metsbot won't delete them here, on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not an administrator...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5/4 DYK[edit]

On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Honningsvåg, 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.

--Bedford 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HNoMS vs. KNM[edit]

Tell me, do you Norwegians really prefer the ship prefix HNoMS when writing for us English-only readers? We have no trouble with Ø or Å, so I don't think that KNM is beyond our capabilities. Personally, I would prefer to use the latter, as it conforms better to the usage recommended in the style manual. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Yes, of course we prefer HNoMS. The point is, HNoMS is the correct English term. We always use HNoMS when writing in English. KNM is the Norwegian language version, for use when speaking in Norwegian. The Dutch do the same thing, with the HNLMS pre-fix, they don't try to force ZM and HM on English-speakers. Neither do we. It's a simply case of translation. HNoMS is the commonly accepted English term. Have a look at the official Norwegian Defence Force website page on the our new frigates to see what I mean. Manxruler (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Here's some pages from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence website: International operations Norway’s defence HNoMS is the official English-language prefix, always. I don't think the spirit of the Wikipedia style manual should be given more weight in this issue than the Norwegian government... Manxruler (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You win. Thanks for the reply. PKKloeppel (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied You're welcome. My intention was never to "win" anything, I simply wanted to show that in fact this is the way the system works with regards to the Royal Norwegian Navy. Keep up the fine work. Manxruler (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Commons[edit]

Hello, what does it mean when you suggest a picture to be moved to Wikipedia commons? I am glad you liked my photo's from Lebanon, soon this area will be a war zone like 1970 again so it was nice to see it while I could. I am just wondering what is wikipedia commons and can I upload feature photos there instead of wikipedia?

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Hi Eternal. Yes, I did like just photos from Lebanon. Really good stuff, you don't see much of that around.

Wikipedia Commons is part of the Wikipedia project and is a repository of free images, either images which are too old for copyright, or images released by their creators. This allows for the images to be easily used on all the Wikipedia projects, not just for example the English language one. It's also used quite a lot by magazines and such looking for good images, so it's common to uload images with a licence like Attribution 3.0 Unported. Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons shows how to move images to Commons. I recommend using Commonshelper for moves (it's listed at the how-to page), to the point where it asks you if you want an automatic upload or upload it yourself, then upload yourself so you'll get the image in your Commons gallery. When you sign up at Commons you get an account with a gallery that shows all the images you've uploaded to Commons, which is very practical. I recommend signing up to Commons, I too used to upload direct to English Wiki, but this is much better. Best of luck, you've got many beautiful and important photos that should get the widest possible publication. Manxruler (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wawelberg Group[edit]

Since you like military history, I was going to let you know about the Wawelberg Group article, but I see you have already noticed it.

Greetings. Tymek (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I meant the Legions of Pilsudski in the WW1. Were there any Polish Legions in the interbellum period? Your help is obviously appreciated. Tymek (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the interbellum, these units were not Legions, but regular Infantry Divisions of the Army, named after the Legions. Wawelberg - Puszczynski himself in the interbellum served in the Border Defence Corps near Sarny (look at Sarny Fortified Area). He died in 1939, most probably murdered by the Soviets, but I have to verify it before I write article about him. Tymek (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page up for deletion??[edit]

{{helpme}} What is the point of the green sign that all of a sudden has appeared on my user page saying something about it being up for deletion? Manxruler (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic! I'm checking it now, I will respond here in minutes -- Chzz ► 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because one of the boxes you have - the templates? - is up for deletion; that's all. Not sure which one - I will find out -- Chzz ► 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, it was because the {{User:Scepia/Grand Theft Auto}} template was up for deletion. I removed it, and all is good. OK? -- Chzz ► 04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Denmark[edit]

Yes it is - the author undid all my edits which removed copyrighted material, and I've reverted back now. Thanks for telling me. Hut 8.5 09:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - he's allowed to do that and we know he's read it. Hut 8.5 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just change the odd word - then it's a derivative work and is still copyrighted. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 09:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work rewriting it by the way. Hut 8.5 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HNoMS Kjell[edit]

On 10 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Kjell, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for very much for the barnstar, it is highly appreciated—just as much as I appreciate your many contributions to Wikipedia too. Thanks, and good luck with the editing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Norway/DYK[edit]

Feel free to leave an updated list at Portal talk:Norway, and if things build up this way I can reference it and get to those DYKs one at a time. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaghara River[edit]

Hi! I need to get back to Delhi to verify my old files to set right the references (some are external links and some are regular under reflist). I will attend to it next week. In the meantime, I have added some photos today.Also there are three more artciles on Nepal's rivers viz., Mahakali river, Gandak river and Kosi river, where I have made total changes/modifications and additions. Please take a look to wikify. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian barnstar[edit]

Wow, I didn't even know there was such a barnstar! Much obliged, good sir. Lampman (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Norwegian figures[edit]

You edited this article yesterday - what a coincidence that I stumbled upon the page today, via other politicians named Irgens (ingen sammenligning for øvrig). Kjeld Stub Irgens is now expanded and nominated for DYK. Punkmorten (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this. Punkmorten (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kjeld Stub Irgens, 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.

More on pictures. I just created the article Peter Blankenborg Prydz, and I reckon the picture here is available to use under the same licence as the one of Kjeld Stub Irgens - is that correct? And the same for this picture (can be clicked and enlarged)? Punkmorten (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good work on A.M. Strømsheim. I took the liberty of deleting the placeholder image. Per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, it has been a widespread notion that the placeholders are not really wanted (although their full removal wasn't supported either). In conclusion, it was viewed as wise "using placeholder images for famous people who make frequent public appearances, but not for private individuals who happen to have written a book or achieved notability in some other channel outside of public view". Considering that she wasn't really a public figure during most of her life, except maybe for birthday celebrations every five or ten years, someone having a free picture isn't likely. Of course, someone might have it, but why ask specifically for it? Generally, much is lacking in most articles - a discrete stub tag is an ok way to say this, as opposed to a glaring picture.. do you agree? Punkmorten (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. To avoid putting too much weight on the placeholder issue, I will compliment you again for your work. A quite obscure topic now has a good article (perhaps even close to Good, considering criterion number three about broadness) at Wikipedia - probably the best source on her in the world, besides the 1991 book of course. Punkmorten (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly relevant for encyclopedia building, but...[edit]

Took a look at your user page. One learns something every day, in this case about an island called Herm with its own flag. You left out Åland though? Or don't you want to go there? Also I happened to agree with most of your userboxes, at least in the first five sections. Punkmorten (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copyeditting USS New Jersey (BB-62), the Mainpage Featured Article for October 15, 2008, I herby present you with The Copyeditor's Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleddale Hall[edit]

Hi. thanks for your comments on the page at DYK. I tried to sort out the citations but one seems to have gone wrong with lots of angry red lettering - I can't see where I have cocked up. Could you help please? Also, how do I add footnotes? Thanks. Stronach (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just checked back and a bot has sorted it. But I'd still be grateful for how to do footnotes. Stronach (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qaswarah[edit]

Hi, thanks for your additions into the article and the attached Swedish sources. I took the liberty of removing the separate section that you created and spreading most of its information throughout the article. It makes for an easier narrative. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anne Margrethe Strømsheim[edit]

On 19 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne Margrethe Strømsheim, 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.

Royal broil 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk aircraft[edit]

Hi Manxruler

I've just uploaded a short article on the Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk MF.12. When I saw what a comprehensive job you'd done on the MF.11, I wanted to ask you to take a look and see if you could improve it at all?

We also need articles on the MF.8, MF.9, and MF.10 for the aircraft section of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and I wonder if you could help with these. Sources in English appear to be "thin on the ground". Of course, had they been British or American designs, it would be a different story! :)

Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered a DYK - thanks for the vote of confidence! But having said that, I still can't seem to think of a "hook" that would be interesting to anyone but those of us obsessed with vintage aircraft... any ideas?

Thanks also for catching that spelling error. The "Flyvebatfabrikk" mis-spelling seems extremely widespread, including the most reliable of English sources (like Jane's and Bill Gunston), so I was very surprised to see that it's wrong! Is there any chance that one is an alternative/archaic/dialectical spelling? Not that I'm questioning you at all - just very curious :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your work in expanding it. I've also now put up brief articles on the MF.8, MF.9, and MF.10 based on the (brief!) information available to me. They could certainly do with expansion, but they're better than what we had before (ie - nothing!)

As you can see, I've relied on the Уголок неба site for much of the material; but I have some serious doubts about their treatment of the MF.8, which they have clearly based on this article from Borreminne. The trouble is, to me it looks like there's a typing or transcription error in that article, and for a whole paragraph, wherever it talks about the MF.8, it really means the MF.9 (paragraph beginning Dette skoleflyet ble stadig modifisert...). Unless, that is, the MF.8 was also called the "Høverjager" and had a 300 hp Hispano-Suiza engine? I therefore left these details out until they could be confirmed with another source.

Some specific details that are missing:

the engine type for the MF.8 (if it wasn't a H-S, or the specific model of H-S if it was)
performance specs of the MF.8 (Уголок неба provides a top speed of 200 km/h, but I left this out until the engine details can be confirmed)
the type of H-S engine in the MF.9 (one of the H-S 12 family? but which one?)
the armament of the MF.9 (Уголок неба says one 7.62 mm gun but doesn't say the type, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft says two guns, but not the calibre or the type)

Any and all help appreciated :) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks on the update to the MF.10. It is very deeply gratifying to me when I see Wikipedia's coverage of obscure types like this develop to this level of comprehensiveness. There are hundreds of books about the F-16 or Spitfire or what-have-you; but this article may now be the most detailed treatment of the MF.10 easily available in English anywhere! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12[edit]

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8[edit]

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10[edit]

On 31 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9[edit]

On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norske Marinefartøy[edit]

Hei

Har du sett boka "Norske marinefartøy"? Eg kjøpte den her ein dag. Den er ei kjempereferanse til lista over marinens skip og til grunninformasjon i artiklane. Eg er litt skuffa over å ha oppdaga ein del trykkfeil her og der, men alt i alt ei interessant bok. Inge (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that might be since we are supposed to disambiguate by year of launch. I and I guess others have earlier disambiguated by years of service. Some vessels are already listed by year of commission and some by launch. Sources might even differ. This is a problem of course. I will work systematically by the reference work I have. If you see that links are broken etc. Just fix them. I won't mind if you change things. If the years involved differ we will just have to debate the merits of the paricular refs. Inge (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ops. Two vessels of the same name shuld both be disambiguated by the year of lauch. Take a look at Ørnen.Inge (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ref things by the book. When things differ I will change them. If that differs from the previous, links might get broken since articles might be placed by year of lauch according to obsolete or contradictory information. We will have to debate the date later if that particular article is placed (in)correctly. I have already changed plenty of ships launch and commission years according to the referenced book. If I am going to go through the book and update our list I will not have time to check every detail. I rely on you and others to pick up on details and divergences. Inge (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short: yes. I have little time. I have found a window of motivation to again contribute towards completing the list I started some time ago as part of the main article. I will unfortunately not have the time to proof read all the edits made according to the newly published book. I will change the list and add refs. If links are broken I will of course try to repair them if I spot them. In some instances that might mean moving the particular article. If I dont spot them I rely on other wikipedians to correct the articles according to the references. thats the spirit of a wiki. Inge (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted some years of service. Those should be debated. I know these are difficult to obtain assured dates on, but I have provided a reputable ref. You have changed some whithout providing the same. The links might have been broken by me, but that might mean the article itself is misplaced...Or what do you think?Inge (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) It is difficult enough to try to systemtically update the list according to the book. If not someone casualy reverts one and the other year in between. I guess I will not have the inclination to revert the reverts you have made. Eg har ikkje tenkt å starte noko her. Eg har lite tid og eg er i utgangspunktet ikkje motivert for lengre debatt om diverse datoar. Eg veit at dr er fleire båtar der ein av og til har brukt år for sjøsetting og av og til brukt år for kommadoheis. Dette er eit problem. Eg er med på at diverse datoar kan debaterast, men eg er ikkje med på reverts der eg har gjeve ei god referanse dersom den einaste grunnen er at linken til artikkelen blir broten. fleire av artiklane er bygde på diverse grunnlag. Ta opp datoen der det er god refreanse mot det eg tek frå den nye boka. Det er bra. Dersom den nye boka går mot det vi har plukka frå nettet før bør vi endre til den nye boka. Eg har ikkje lyst til å gå gjennom det same punktet fleire gonger for å sjekke om ting er rett etter at eg har retta det etter den nye boka. Er du med? Tida er knap og vi er fleire om jobben. Det er ei kjempflott bok vi har fått i fanget. Kjempekjekk å lese og veldig god å bruke. Men eg vil ikkje bruke tid på anna enn å legge til det vi manglar eller det vi har tatt feil om. Rvkrig er uinteressant. Kva trur du?Inge (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree :)Inge (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to USS West Ekonk (ID-3313)[edit]

I saw in your recent edit to USS West Ekonk (ID-3313) that you had removed some non-breaking space characters as a part of other edits you made. Please be aware that non-breaking space usage may often be intentional. For example, in the ship displacement field in the infobox, the non-breaking space between the quantity and the unit is as suggested by the manual of style. Also, non-breaking spaces are used to avoid unfortunate line breaks in the middle of convoy designations, like "convoy HX 121", so that HX and 121 don't end up on separate lines. I have restored all of the non-breaking spaces that were removed in this case, but please be aware of this in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

When editing articles on Wikipedia (like Castle Rushen) please use the preview button to check any changes you make, rather than saving every edit. Saving every edit makes it hard for other wiki editors to track the progress of the article, and then amend them as needed Bleaney (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the reasearch FIRST, before you start editing the article, then do one complete save. I could understand it if you had beeen researching the article over a matter of weeks or months, but as its all today theres no need for a mega amount of editsBleaney (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you take this article to WP:GAC? Punkmorten (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a little while, yes I will. I still have some more stuff to sneak in before I'm quite ready to have it considered. Manxruler (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your field of interest[edit]

Hi! I think you'll find my newest article interesting. Punkmorten (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready for DYK now, I guess. Thanks for improving it. I sent forward a co-nom. Punkmorten (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good enough for DYK, although in a few hours I'll have gone through some more sources for some more details. Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you might be preoccupied with other things right now, but: I had a look at Joachim Rønneberg, and destubbed it. It could easily be expanded with material, especially about the heavy water sabotation. However, the article Norwegian heavy water sabotage was entirely unreferenced, so none of that text could be "borrowed". Just sayin'. The article about Rønneberg has potential. Punkmorten (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always you've done great research and work. The field of Norwegian historical biographies is really starting to flourish (quantity and quality). Do you want to submit a DYK nom or should I do it? If you do, remember to file under November 8. Punkmorten (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to Astrid Løken. Punkmorten (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you didn't find any info on Løken, is probably that XU was shrouded in secrecy until the recent years (cf the book by Sæter & Sæter, 2007). Anyway, my exams are over now, so expect more articles to come:) Punkmorten (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any personal info on Sunde, the NSD bio was weak. I did respond to your DYK nom; verified the second and questioned the first. The article needs to mention the victory at Dombås. Punkmorten (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll tick it now. I should confess that, in the sentence "150 remaining German Fallschirmjäger soldiers surrendered to the Norwegian forces", I originally misread "surrendered" as "surrounded". Punkmorten (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in receiving more suggestions for new articles or ideas for expansion? Punkmorten (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read about some controversial sinkings of Hurtigruten ships, among others Irma and Sanct Svithun. I am not familiar with ship articles, not even how the titles should be styled. It should be mentioned that the Norwegian WP has articles on both ships. 1 2. Punkmorten (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another WWII ship is SS Westfalen. It needs an infobox. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Punkmorten (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank[edit]

I have tried to discuss with admins how to set the ranks on WP:en, but got no clear answer. Imo "correct" way is to use the form oberst (Colonel) Eriksen and Hauptmann (captain) Hamel etc. Hamel was never promoted "captain". On WP it is so easy to set a link explaing e.g. oberst. What's your opion? KjellG (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo battery[edit]

Sorry, but i do not find "double torpedo tunnels" to be very good. Can you come up with something better? KjellG (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. The way it is presented right now is the standard English language way of showing that there was a system with three launchers (torpedo tunnels) that had two torpedoes loaded at a time. I think it works fine now. What specifically is off with the way it is? Manxruler (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German at Filtvet?[edit]

Check this reference: Dr. Philos. Grimnes, Ole Kristian: "Oscarsborg festning - 9. april 1940", Forsvarets Krigshistoriske Avdeling, 1990 (Norwegian) -- page 8

You argue this is a Myth, but at least here is a dr. refering this "fact". Now you have refered to the signal log at Oscarsborg and I prefere to believe that Grimnes is wrong. Wonder where he got that ifo from? How to solve contradictive references on WP?KjellG (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the boats at Filtvedt reported German vessels? In such cases I prefer to believe what all the other sources are saying, especially since the signal log at Oscarsborg says differently. One has, of course, to consider which source is more credible and has the most authority. For example, the Grimnes ref, which I've got right here next to me, is 30 page booklet printed in 1990. In this case I prefer to believe the significantly larger "Fjeld, Odd T. (ed.): "Kystartilleriet 100 år", Sjømilitære Samfund ved Norsk Tidsskrift for Sjøvesen, Hundvåg 1999". There also a Wikipedia policy on this somewhere. Manxruler (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point too, but we are now both considering the quality of sources. We agree on this one, but there might be other references too that not nessecerely are good and then we either ignore those that we do not beleive in, e.g.Filtvet, or we have to make some sort of comment to sources that do not seem correct. Do you have any system for that? It does not look good if the article is full of "on one side/on another side". Could we wright what we belive in and have a link to the/some discussion page? In such a case the discussion page may need a clean up? KjellG (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few hours, I think I have a pretty simple way of dealing with this issue. Just gotta figure out the exact method to of about this. Manxruler (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK submission of Castle Rushen[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Castle Rushen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. The hook is in the article but is currently uncited (the part about Magnus founding it); I am sure an easy fix. — BillC ^talk 01:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Castle Rushen[edit]

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castle Rushen, 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.

—Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Odd Isaachsen Willoch[edit]

On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Isaachsen Willoch, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Joachim Rønneberg[edit]

On 14 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joachim Rønneberg, 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.

Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ørnen[edit]

HNoMS Ørnen was launched 14 Sep. 1829. First command was on 3 June 1833 and the ship was stricken from the fleet 1874. The second Ørnen was launched 10 April 1849. On a totally different note: What do you think about this? Inge (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arne Sunde[edit]

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arne Sunde, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonconstructive editing[edit]

Hi. This edit of your is considered as nonconstructive. Please read discussion in Template talk:Lifetime. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is ok to me. The other is not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, if you felt I used hard language. Replacing 2 categories and defaultsort with lifetime makes no good. There is no difference in the result. Sorry, but I am busy right now. I'll add you details soon. Have a nice day/evening. Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I now have some more time for an answer, yesterday I was really busy. Take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22. I suggested many times that a consensus is reached in one important thing: To choose between Lifetime and DEFAULTSORT+categories and make a suggestion to editors what is the preferable method. I think the closure was a bit hasty and non enlightening. Reading the discussion it was clear that many people find Lifetime useful and use it. It was clear also that something has to be done with DEFAULTSORT. Probably go outside the template. Moreover, since there is no consensus for a preferable method, to go and substitute everything with one method against the other is something nonconstructive, it will make no difference what people see on the screen. It's like something runs AWB just to move stubs to the bottom of an article. Finally, I informed about my actions and thoughts in Template talk:Lifetime. I have made comments about everything concerning this template, warned about possible issues. You can participate in there to help us.

Replacing BD with Lifetime is ok to me. for the moment at least. The important thing right now is to get rid of BD and handle Lifetime later. So, edits for replace BD are constructive. I find it is easier with my bot to substitute it and I also prefer defaultsort from lifetime but I won't touch Lifetime until a consensus is reached. I ensure you that if people decide that everything has to be converted in Lifetime I 'll run a bot to help in this. I hope my answer covers you. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Mount Hermon‎[edit]

Thanks for spotting my silly error in writing "captured" instead of "wounded in the infobox :) Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Sanct Svithun[edit]

On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Sanct Svithun, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and well-done article. Congratulations. Kablammo (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK update question[edit]

Portal:Norway/DYK/43 looks good. You just have to purge your cache. Go into Special:Preferences, go to Gadgets, and click Add a "*" tab to the top of the page which lets you purge the cache of the page., and hit save. Then you will see a "*" tab at the top of the page, when you click that you will see the updated changes. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out in this capacity! Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo attack[edit]

Can you specify what you are missing? KjellG (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing page 189 of Fjeld's book as a source for information about south directed launcher, ranges or 60 seconds. That page doesn't say that. Manxruler (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing page 189 says about the torpedo battery is the speed of Blücher was estimated to be 7 knots when she was first observed from the torpedo battery and that the first torpedo was launched against Blücher midship area. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monclar[edit]

Appreciate the help, as I got sidetracked before I could finish the article. Also, I find things like infoboxes horridly tedious. V. Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Lebanese Commando Regiment, Articles created/expanded on December 13[edit]

I have replied to your reply on the DYK talk page. I have removed the photo, can we proceed? thank you --Zaher1988 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you --Zaher1988 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the hook, and the first category. However:

concerning the equipment, there is not article that talks about these, but I'm into the LAF photos and subjects, and all arms mentioned there have been seen in photos with the Commando Regiment.
Same applies to the uniform camouflage.
The Main tasks are the main tasks of any special operations force, so they are true.
As for the selection and training section,all the text is from that source, which is a report from the LAF official website, it is simply a translation so where do you suggest putting the references? it will fill all that section I put next to each paragraph.
Operational deployment, I will make sure to put references for them, I already have them.

--Zaher1988 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I have referenced the deployment, I still have one, I trying to find.

Concerning the equipment, uniform, camouflage, can i reference a photos thread on a military forum??

"There has to be a reference somewhere regarding the tasks of the Lebanese Commando Regiment" << can you please link me... --Zaher1988 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, expecting your reply. --Zaher1988 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPs:P i read it wrong.. it's ok I will ask there. thx for the comments:)--Zaher1988 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bernelle[edit]

Hi, MR, I have started another French millitary history article, this time about a French Foreign Legion officer who started of in the Grande Armee, had a tyranical wife and led the Legion through the very tough and very useless Carlist War. The French wikipedia article is not nearly so helpful as Monclar's. Just thought you might like to lend a paw. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II ships[edit]

Does MV Pelikan qualify for this list, she was requisitioned by the Kriegsmarine in 1940 and seized by UK in 1945. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't want to make another addition that would be revered. No prob about the delay, enjoy your xmas! Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Drøbak Sound[edit]

As a someone who is involved in this article can you explain why it should by listed as a decisive Norwegian victory? The Germans took the area, Oslo fell, and so did Norway. I understand the Royal Family was able to escape, but they were not the primary objective. Olso was the main prize and it was taken. And to imply decisive means to imply a long lasting strategic victory. Unless the article is saying Norwegian resistance lasted another month because of the escape of the Royals. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But I still don't agree witht he useage of the word "decisive". As you know this carries strategic implications and implies a long lasting success. Was it decisive to thwarting the German operation as a whole? No. So it cannot be decisive. Unless as mentioned above you are claiming it prolonged the campaign through the escape of the Royals.Dapi89 (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how was it this decisive. It still doesn't answer my question. Was it a cog in preventing the fall of Oslo, thus Norway? No. It was a tactical victory. One cannot call it decisive just because they managed to extract their Royals and Government. Thus use of the word "decisive" implies a critical success in military terms. Dapi89 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interest, Your field of[edit]

Hi again. Since you were going through my contribs looking for something of interest (I often do this as well), I started the page Conrad Wilhelm Eger. He played a role during the war, but I can't find much more on him. Punkmorten (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was new to me. Punkmorten 09:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More news. Punkmorten 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration is fun. I'll start as usual, and you'll expand using your books. I noted that one obituary had a "fact box", which we can't use because Wikipedia is cited as the source. Punkmorten 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, articles such as this are copied almost verbatim from the Norwegian Wikipedia, which (of course...) itself is unsourced. I won't use any references unless I'm positive they don't derive from WP. This means I have to wait until tomorrow, when I can access pre-WP articles in Atekst. Punkmorten 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have got a hold of some Atekst articles now. In the meantime, see this. Punkmorten (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There, I expanded the article. The news pieces also mentioned a mission consisting of a mini-sub attack at Måløy harbor in September 1944: "De skulle sabotere Måløy havn, men en tragisk misforståelse gjorde at de måtte rømme landet fortest mulig. Det ble mer spennende enn noen ønsket seg". It doesn't say any more than this. Do you know what it's about? Punkmorten (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair that this ship bears its English name, when it was Norwegian for the last part of its lifespan? Also it's interesting in a WWII context, as it was bombed. Punkmorten (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Norway's finest athletes was also a Kompani Linge member. The resistance section is very thin at the moment, though, but I'm sure he's mentioned in books :) I will try to check Våre falne tomorrow or Thursday. Punkmorten (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been improved. The ROH source has almost been driven out. Punkmorten (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on Leif Tronstad. The source says that on 9 April, he "stopped in the Dovre mountains to organise volunteers from the local rifle associations for a line of defence". Did this have any impact on the Battle of Dombås, with Dombås being located somewhat at the foot of Dovrefjell? Punkmorten (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This says: "Men ved ankomst Oppdal var det klart at Oslo var okkupert, og han bestemte seg for å organisere et forsvar av Dovreområdet. Der var han godt kjent siden familen hadde hytte ved Fokstua. Ved hjelp av lokale skytterlag organiserte han en forsvarslinje ved Hjerkinn. Han sørget også for, ved hjelp av snøbrøyting, å hindre at tyskerene kunne lande med fly på de store sjøene langs jernbanelinjen. Arbeidet hans fikk betydning ved at de norske styrkenes retrett fra Østerdalen over Folldal til Hjerkinn ble trygget." Punkmorten (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe the sentence "Only days later, Norwegian forces defeated German Fallschirmjäger paratroops in the nearby Battle of Dombås." should be removed then. Besides, though, the information available (that hosted by HiO and NTNU, among others) is pretty good, so maybe GA status could be a goal for this article. Punkmorten (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only details about the heavy water sabotage are missing now, it seems. Punkmorten (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Irma (1905)[edit]

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Irma (1905), 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.

Gatoclass 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Henry[edit]

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Henry, 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.

Gatoclass 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Irma & SS Henry[edit]

A couple of sources you might find useful to expand ship articles are Plimsoll Ship Data] and Miramar Ship Index. If you use the Miramar website as a source you need to use {{cite Miramar}} for reasons given on the Miramar home page. You might consider consolidating the infobox as per the SS Empire Antelope article. Mjroots (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same infobox, but the info is displayed in a way that makes the infobox more compact. Try opening the article in a new window and compare them side by side and you'll see what I mean. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the medal. I appreciated it. Punkmorten (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs[edit]

Sorry for that, i know sorry. Won't happen again.... --This Feels Right (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'll do that..... --This Feels Right (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fredrik Kayser[edit]

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fredrik Kayser, 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.

Gatoclass 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for fixing the typos in my hook. Much appreciated! :) --Belasd (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parc naturel régional d'Armorique[edit]

Hi Manxruler. You've added a tag Citationstyle to the article. I corrected few things. May I please ask you to take another look and tell me what else should be done. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. Thank you very much for your time and for your help! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help. May I please add you to my DYK nomination? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very nice. I wish I took it.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Deny Flight[edit]

Hi Manxruler, I was just wondering what you found unclear about the citations in the Operation Deny Flight article. I've essentially just followed MLA style for all of them, and although the references section is a little messy, these things often are. What would you suggest for improving the citation style? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I cleaned up those citations and I took the liberty of removing the tag. If you think we've still got more work to do on the citation style, drop me a note or just slap the tag back on, and I'll have another go. Cool3 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks again. Cool3 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Hi Manxruler, I tried but failed to make the DYK credit be given to you. Sorry about this. May I please thank you for helping me with the article? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Appreciate your pointing out WP:RS does not allow Wikipedia to reference Wikipeda. In the 4 years I’ve been intermittently editing on Wikipedia the use of links as an acceptable interim indication of source for interwiki-translations has been debated continuously. Since I am only able to edit episodically (as an engineer, I travel extensively) I find the wiki-rules change between my editing spurts. So I appreciate the dedication of folks like yourself who are willing to monitor segments of the encyclopedia to improve its quality. This allows me to focus - in those periods when I do have some time to contribute - on simply getting new material onto the page rather than on mastering all the ever-evolving rules, techniques, formats & expectations of the Wikipedia. Thank you!

By the way, thanks for checking for dead links on the Austrått article – it took a bit of work to translate & I must confess I cut some corners on link checks – spotting the dead links helps.

I’ve noticed your excellent work on Norwegian articles over several years now. As a user of Wikipedia, thank you.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit: Grand Star[edit]

Just looked over your past contributions and felt compelled to recognize your exceptional work. I started to give you the standard barnstar, but noted you already have one. So here is the next level up.

		Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit: Grand Star
		For your extended history of superior contributions to Norwegian articles it is my honor to award you the Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit with Grand Star. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future ship articles[edit]

Hi, I'm not intending to, got enough to be going on with the Empire ships <g>. I think that the SS Rowan would make a better subject! Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a slight problem with the template which caused the text to appear in the wrong place. Managed to fix it though! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The marvels and mysteries of cite web[edit]

Hei,

Sorry I didn’t respond earlier. Was reading through all the material on using {{cite web |url= html |title= |accessdate= |work= |publisher= |date= |language=Norwegian }}</ref> and the time got away. Only had time to run a quick experiment with ‘’cite webb’’ before going out to meet Herr Professor Omberg for breakfast, and then on to do what must be done for the day. But, now that there is time to write, this is what I understand:

Using the cite web template assures one adds a fair bit of relevant information so that the reference is more consistent

And apparently someone amongst our wikipedia friends “rides a robot” to identify new “cite web” templates and makes sure that they go into WebCite to request a permanent archive.

Somehow – should the link rot, as it undoubtedly will sooner of later – someone will know how to retrieve the reference from WebCite and repoint the reference so it is still live.

If this is a correct understanding, then using {{cite web}} is a virtuous thing to do and I will do it. For this insight, thank you!

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent tips. Good to learn. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DS Corvus[edit]

Hi - sorry to bother you. I have created an article on a Norwegian steamship that was sunk by a U-boat during World War II. Is there any chance that you could look at the article and correct any errors of a nautical (or other) nature that I may have made? It would be nice to add something about her peace-time activities if you can find anything. Thanks for any help. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's Gross Tonnage and not Gross Register Tonnage? Plimsoll Ship Data (Lloyds Register) says quite clearly that its Gross Register Tonnage is 1317. Column 4 is headed "Regist'd Tonnage" and the entries are Gross, Under Deck and Net. You may need to zoom in to 300% to see it clearly though. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why has the hook[6] been overlooked for DYK? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museums in Basel[edit]

Hi. Is it O.K. if i remove your refimprove-tag now?--Basmus (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fallschirmjäger in Norwegen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Dronning Maud (1925)[edit]

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Dronning Maud (1925), 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.

Shubinator (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No flagged revisions category up for deletion[edit]

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Thanks for Gunnar Heiberg and welcome back, although I suspect you won't stay for long? Punkmorten (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gunnar Heiberg[edit]

On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gunnar Heiberg, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for updating the DYKs at Portal:Norway ! Cirt (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to uninstall dykcheck[edit]

{{help me}} How do I uninstall User:Shubinator/DYKcheck? I installed it, but now I realize I don't need it at all and it looks really bad when I look at the DYK noms. I've tried to remove the text from my monobook, but that didn't work, and I can't find info on how to get rid of it. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still in your monobook.js at the moment; it says;

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool

Go to User:Manxruler/monobook.js, edit it, and remove that line. You may then need to WP:PURGE for it to take effect - to do that, click this. Chzz ► 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did all that. And DYK check is still there. As is that extremely annoying screen split every time I go to Template talk:Did you know. That split is the main reason why I want to rid myself of the DYK checker. Manxruler (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you purge by clicking that thingy above? The line has indeed been removed now; if purge fails, try closing your browser and restarting it. Let me know below. Cheers. Chzz ► 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I purged, and now I've closed and restarted the browser. No difference, it's still there. I'm starting to think it might be an idea to delete my monobook, I've never used it before and I don't think I need it. Manxruler (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone! Balloons and cake for everyone! It seems all I had to do was to purge while actually in my monobook, for some reason. Manxruler (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, purge is weird. Glad you got it sorted, and bonus points for removing the helpme thing. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird purging indeed. Thanks for the assistance! Manxruler (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lauritz Sand[edit]

On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lauritz Sand, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS Barøy[edit]

More info on the ship can be found here, including code letters, dimensions in feet and inches and engine details. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dks = decks :-). Not sure about the N at the far right of page, column header is in French and partly obscured. You can zoom in on the document to several hundred percent of original size if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Barøy (1929)[edit]

On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Barøy (1929), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Aerial warfare in the Winter War[edit]

Hi! You knocked out a DYK candidate Foreign support in the Winter War. So, this time a little bit more careful. I started a new article Aerial warfare in the Winter War. As you can see from the history record of the article Winter War (I have edited it a lot recently and still continue...), I added more than half of new stuff. Any chance for you to second this second baby? Peltimikko (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Nuhanovic[edit]

Actually it wasn't me who nominated the article, it was Vejvančický, but I told him to go ahead if he wanted to. I don't really understand what you mean about bare urls. Do references require elaboration? I do that when I think about it but is there urgency? Opbeith (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid and helpful message. In fact I'm quite unhappy about the wording of the clip "... that Hasan Nuhanović was involved in the first civil court action brought by the survivors of the Srebrenica massacre against the Dutch state?" which I've just seen for the first time now that you've drawn it to my attention. Unfortunately Vejvančický did not discuss it with me or warn me before submitting the application.

1. It's not a case brought by "the survivors" - HN is an individual claimant.

2. The case being "brought by the survivors" is a description more applicable to the Mothers of Srebrenica's class action case which is being brought against the United Nations rather than the Dutch state and whose first instance hearing preceded HN's case at the District Court).

3. The "firstness" is rather artificial as most survivors are likely to be involved in claims against the United Nations. The claims against the Dutch derive from the specific circumstances in which a group of refugees within the Dutch base were ordered to leave and the Dutch failed in a duty of responsibility which is being tested in two very specific cases.

4. HN is more than "involved", he is the individual whose claim is being heard in the case (which is joined with another specific case brought by the widow, son and daughter of Rizo Mustafic).

5. "The Srebrenica massacre" is a contentious description and its use makes many of the survivors angry, because it has been used as a way of avoiding acknowldgment of the findings of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. (There is heated discussion at the Srebrenica massacre article about moving the article to Srebrenica genocide - I have to declare an interest as one of the parties). Part of the background to this case is the reference to the anomaly in international humanitarian law that the Dutch State and the United Nations are falling back on a claim to absolute immunity which it is argued is inconsistent with the requirement in the UN Genocide Convention that states must act to prevent genocide.

A better wording might be " ... that Hasan Nuhanović is responsible for the first civil court action against an individual nation state (The Netherlands) for failure to protect the lives of victims of genocide".

Sorry for that complication, but this is an important issue. Opbeith (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I should have said that the term "the Srebrenica genocide" is preferable to "the Srebrenica massacre" - the genocide is the comprehensive description which encompasses aspects other than the physical killings (the massacre), including the legal deliberations which defined the crime that involved those killings as genocide. Sorry if this sounds complex and finicky, but there are important legal issues involved. Opbeith (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do as you suggest. Thanks very much for your advice. Opbeith (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q[edit]

1) Hi! A Per Voksø wrote a book called Krigens Dagbok – Norge 1940–1945. I wrote an article on a Per Voksø but NBL doesn't list that book among his works. Was it him still? Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Hi again! Våre falne says of Olav Ringdal that he "ledet opplysningstjenesten". From the text I'd guess that this was an entity within Milorg, but do you have any idea what it really was? Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) Hi again again! Do you have any sources on Reidar Selmer? I believe he was notable as the defender of Henry Rinnan, but I can't find anything about him. Should be covered somewhere though. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving no question unanswered ever. You beat me to adding authorlinks for Per Voksø. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4) Hi (when you return from leave)! This says that a person "var også los på krysseren Sleipner som var med i keiser Wilhelm 2s eskadre på de nesten årlige sommerferdene til Norge". Would this ship be HNoMS Sleipner (1877)? Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5) There was a notable school named Hærens Flyveskole at Kjeller before WWII. Any idea what to call this in English? Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC) And what about Flyvåpnenes Felleskommando? Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) Know anything about MS Bel Pamela? No internet presence whatsoever, but I used a book as a source (in Odd Isøy). It doesn't say much about the ships's history, though, and the ship was probably not used for human passenger traffic either, so... Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft shooting happened some time in April 1945 near Sandefjord. Before that, the ship had been hit near Kristiansand (Røed, 2007: p. 199) <- unfortunately that book almost never tells you the exact date. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about the time of Kristiansand attacks. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the Miramar link, where one Christen Smith is listed as an owner, it would seem that there is a connection to Belships. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7) It's perhaps rude to ask you a question now during your busy days... well this is more of an observation. I wrote up Knut Lier-Hansen today, and Alf Larsen (who is mentioned over at SF Hydro) was not mentioned in any of the newspaper clips (one of them is visible online, NRK Telemark) - only Lier-Hansen, Sørlie and Haukelid were mentioned. Strange. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norway Portal[edit]

Hi Manx. Saw that you added DYKs at Portal:Norway, and wondered if you were aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway/Article alerts, and if not I wanted to make you aware of it. It should be a great tool for finding Norway-related DYKs. Rettetast (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quisling regime[edit]

Hi,

thanks a lot for fixing and completing the uppity article about the Quisling regime that I had started as a stub. Your sources in Norwegian are certainly more precise than the few ones in english which I had previously found. I'll use your work to fix the French article and I'm sure you'll be able to make a fine article in norwegian if you ever want to ;).

However, I have just a few questions : are you sure that the name Norges Rike was never officially used (i.e. on official documents, et al) ? According to this source, it was used on state seals, which would be an interesting detail to add.

About the name Nasjonal Riksregjering (national government of the realm, if I understand well) : was it never used either (at least in the official proclamation ?). It would be an interesting detail regarding Quisling's relationship with the norwegian monarchy, which was not officially abolished, if I'm not mistaken. Both expressions are used here. So that would mean that the Nasjonal Riksregjering was officially proclaimed, and that Quisling later called his government the Nasjonale regjering of the Norges Rike ? Is it "Nasjonal" or "Nasjonale", btw ?

About the infobox : IMHO, it should have one, as it is legally considered a distinct regime from the Kingdom of Norway itself. The French State does have an infobox, even though it was never officially a distinct regime from the Third Republic, which was not officially abolished (they just stopped using the name Republic, without any official proclamation). So does the Wang Jingwei regime, which actually claimed to be the same regime as the Republic of China, being just a different government than Chiang Kai-shek's (they claimed to be the legitimate government of China, like Quisling's government claimed to be Norway's legitimate government). The difference between "state" and "government" is arguably tenuous when we are in the presence of two differente governments who both claim to be the legitimate embodiment of the state. Best regards & thanks again for your help, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

regarding the use of the infobox, I still think it wouldn't do any harm, since it was a distinct regime. It was a puppet state (or puppet government), but not that more than the Wang Jingwei government (though the difference was that the chinese collaborationist government did have troops, though they were completely in the service of the Japanese). The Vichy regime did have some autonomy, but that was severely reduced in 1942 when Germany occupied the previously unoccupied southern zone of France (without any opposition from Vichy); also, it had no troops (only in colonies and overseas territories) and was reduced, in the end, as nothing more than a pretext for having a french administration. I guess they had more latitude for action than the Quisling regime, but you probably know more than I about the activity or Norse police during the occupation (the French police was de facto put in the service of the Germans; I don't know what happened in Norway). If Quisling's (admittedly ridiculous) regime posed itself as a clear opponent of the legitimate royal government in exile, that alone justifies an infobox. As for the article's title, "Quisling regime" might be good (it's currently a redirection to the article, and so is "Quisling government"). Regarding "Norge rike", this site specifies that it was used on official documents. It might be interesting to ask them their source. Anyway, this is very much like the french case : the French republic was never abolished, and they just started using the name "French State" on official documents; just like in Norway where the monarchy was "suspended", so I guess they had to use some kind of name on official documents. If it is true, so I guess it has to be mentioned in the article. This is much like the case of the greek collaborationist government, which declared the monarchy abolished, but (apparently) never specified the type of government : they just used the name "Hellenic state" instead. So, "Norges rike" was probably never widely used, not to mention popular, but if it did exist as the country's official name, it should be mentioned. The name of the state is actually different thing than the name of the government. I think we should email worldstatesmen on that one. Best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think those websites should be contacted... but just to ask them for their sources, which can be helpful. ;) As for the infobox, well I certainly won't bicker over it, but I think it is a matter of personal judgement. The Wang Jingwei government was also completely ridiculous, and controlled only a limited portion of China (that is, the portion that the Japanese allowed them to control) although it purported to be control the whole country. So it was, like Quisling, a regime, which would justify an infobox. Again, I think we should keep looking for the actual polity style, because the country obviously had to have some kind of official name on its official documents. Governments can have their infoboxes, like the Provisional Government of the French Republic, which has its own infobox, and rightly so, although the country's official name was still "French Republic" during that period. If Norges rike was used in some official way or another, then it should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree that "Quisling government" (or regime) is a much more common name than "State of Norway". I'll try to see what I can find. best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found some evidence : apparently, the state seal was indeed changed to "Seal of the norwegian state" (I guess this is an alternate translation to "Norges rike", although "State of Norway" seems more appropriate : tell me if I am wrong), in order to stop mentioning the king. So this would indicate that it was indeed used as the country's official name. "National government" may have been used as a propaganda name, though the best thing to do would perhaps to look at the text of the official proclamation (if such a text is easily accessible). best Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be surprising to learn that National government was the official name of the country, which had to have some kind of official name during that period (probably not "Kingdom of Norway"). Quisling's "rule" being a distinct regime (however ridiculous) than the kingdom, that would justify an infobox. Even the Nedic regime in Serbia has one. Being able to read norwegian (unlike poor me), I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find the best sources, but I'll keep looking myself. If the folks at worldstatesmen answer me and indicate me a good source, that would also be useful. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just wait for your improvements - while trying to find stuff myself - and use it later to improve the French article (hope you can find sources in english that I can read, but I'll trust you anyway on the sources in norwegian). Best Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Norges rike expression also appears on this website. Ok, I know the problem about websites, but is contributors are university researchers (I googled the names, which are genuine), so I guess it might also be interesting to contact them and ask them for sources. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I got a very clear answer from the archontology.org editor, whose sources are the works of Oddvar K. Hoidel and Hans Fredrik Dahl (english translations). His answers are pretty much what I had supposed before.

The country's polity style on official documents was indeed "Norwegian state" : "I conducted inquiries regarding the Norwegian-language form of this term, and was informed that it was "Norges Rike(t)" rather than "Norsk Rike(t)"; however, I should prefer to have someone look into Dahl's original Norwegian-language work".

However, there is no evidence that the name was used beyond official documents and had any propaganda based on it (unlike Vichy's "French State"). "Norwegian state" was the official name used for the country, but the propaganda name used was "National government" (referring to the government itself, not the country).

The name of the government was Norges/Norsk nasjonal regjering and NOT Riksregjering. "Najsonal Riksregjering" was what the Nasjonal Samling asked for in the 1930s. During the occupation, they settled for Regjering without the "Riks".

Hence, there clearly was an attempt to avoid any direct mention to the monarchy, which makes Quisling's regime a distinct "state" than the Kingdom of Norway, and justifies the use of an infobox. Even the Italian-controlled Montenegro has one and it was the most pathetic of all puppet government/states (unlike Quisling's regime, it did not even have a proper government for most of the war !). I must add that there is a slight confusion in the use of the term "puppet state". I'd say that the epitome of the term "puppet state" was the Manchukuo, which was a country created pretty much ex nihilo. However, part of the Nazi/German/Italian "puppet states" were actually "puppet governments", i.e. new regimes imposed in preexisting countries, like for example the Regno albanese, which was the preexisting Albanian kingdom transformed into a new, italian-friendly monarchy, or (once again) the French State. Likewise, the Wang Jingwei regime was a puppet government in the purest sense of the term, not a puppet state. However, the frontier between puppet state and puppet government is rather tenuous. I'd say that the Quisling regime, while different from Vichy in scope and means, falls into the same category : a regime which replaced a preexistent one (a Monarchy in Norway's case, a Republic in France's case) but did not have the time to clearly define what it was (hence the use of the word "state"; the 1944-1945 Hungarian State, while briefer in existence, is also exactly the same case). However, since Nasjonal regjering was clearly the name used for official propaganda purposes, I think this is the name that should be used in the infobox, although the use of "Norwegian state" is very significant. I guess this is both because Nasjonal regjering sounds cooler than Norges rike, and because the emphasis was put on Quisling as head of government, not head of state (unlike Pétain, who had his "Chief of the French State" title put all over the place). The official name would be "Norges nasjonal regjering" or "Norsk nasjonal regjering" (which one is more correct ?) As we said before, "Quisling regime" would be a fine title for the article. Since the "Quisling" name is less familiar in French than it is in English or Scandinavian languages, I think I shall use a title "Gouvernement national (Norvège)" or "Gouvernement national norvégien" to rename the French article. Best, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Hi Manxruler. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and have struck you from the list. Keep up the good work. decltype (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian War Cross[edit]

Yes, I noticed that after making the move. The source I was using seems to be slightly at variance with the Royal website. I'm going to have a look around for some better sources - I fear that the Royal site might not be a very good translation of the various medal names. Krigskorset seems to be a fairly widespread usage judging by Google, and [7] seems to omit the inclusion of the swords in the article name. On the other hand, though quite familiar with British/American medals, I am not Norwegian, so perhaps you have the advantage of me in this area! --Xdamr^talk 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hans Gabrielsen[edit]

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Gabrielsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boo[edit]

Articles about air force officers are way too technical to understand for a regular person. What does one do with help like this? I need someone to complain to... Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ehrhardt 7.5 cm Model 1901[edit]

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ehrhardt 7.5 cm Model 1901, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25 .... 29 DYKs[edit]

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Well done Manxruler. Such a Norwegian eclectic contribution to the DYK project. Biographies, motor torpedo boats ... etc Lots of contributions. Thank you from me and the wiki. Not bad for someone on wikibreak. Happy yuletide from me and the Nesse Victuallers (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look to Norway[edit]

Sounds good to me. As long as they are WP:FAs, the more the better! Cirt (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you see if you can figure out how to do it? Teach a man to fish...... Cirt (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian polar explorers etc.[edit]

You're so nice. Thank you for that info. Hopefully I'll get it right when I download the photos myself. But if not, I'll ask for help! Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for downloading photos into Commons, I haven't done that. I've been happy writing the articles, figuring that someone else has the expertise in adding photos. It all seems to even out in the end. Does the National Library of Norway site have an English translation? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lillebil Ibsen[edit]

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lillebil Ibsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip[edit]

When removing wrong interwikis, it's best to fix the error on the other wiki as well, or else a bot may re-add the error here. Geschichte (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Skorpa prisoner of war camp[edit]

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skorpa prisoner of war camp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time[edit]

I'm famous! Lampman (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Leden[edit]

Hello Manxruler. I just created an article on Christian Leden. There don't appear to be any photos of him over at Commons. If you have an opportunity to locate and add a photo, that would be great, but no worries if that doesn't work out. Happy New Year! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SS Bergensfjord[edit]

It is quite likely that Genoa was her port of registry under Home Lines ownership. I put Italy as I didn't have definite proof. If other Home Lines ships are verifiable as being registered in Genoa then I'd be happy to state that for Argentina (as Bergensfjord was then). At least the correct flag and country is shown. Up to you whether or not to change it.

If you've got time, there is plenty more info to be gleaned from the Lloyds registers (link on article talk page), such as details of her engines, Code letters etc. I'm busy on the Empire B ships atm, only two more to do. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source gives a detailed history of her war service. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add the convoys etc in. It is unusual to have that amount of detail, and is worth including. I've done it for the odd Empire ship where I can find similar detail.

With the Plimsoll Ship Data site (from link on article talk page), all the bold codes under the PDF File column are clickable links to PDF scans of the actual page with the Lloyd's Register entry. Lloyds Register entry numbers, Official Numbers and Code Letters are in the first column. Note that c1934 there was a wholesale change of code letters used. You'll need to check all of the entries to ensure no change of homeport / code letters / ownership / management took place. Code letters probably most likely here given what we already know. You know how to use the {{ICS}} to created the individual code letter flags, don't you? Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lind[edit]

Hi! When searching for Arne Kjelstrup on Atekst, I found the following picture caption: "Trening i Skottland før Operasjon Sunshine. Fra v: Arne Kjelstrup, Norman Lind, Jens-Anton Poulsson og Leif Tronstad. Fra boka: Tungtvannssabotasjen". So I created a stub for Norman Lind. Would you happen to have more information about him in one of your books? Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Bergensfjord[edit]

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Bergensfjord, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal[edit]

Hello, Manxruler! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent warning[edit]

[8] - Could you explain there is that what you are noted for? Names of ship? It's load?

It's also would be good if you'll explain who is Sergey Kovalev? Also would be nice if you can provide sources for recently added by you data -

naval tanker Jan Wellem
The German destroyers Hermann Künne and Hans Lüdemann were anchored alongside the tanker Jan Wellem and refuelling

ThanksJo0doe (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad to see your [9] - It's sad to see "word-for-word copy-paste job" (which is not true) and "replacing valid content with copyright-violating material as well" ((which is not true). I really not expect such from such noble editor. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to not leave your accusations unanswered, you are incorrect in your statements. It was a copyright violation (in fact a "word-for-word copy-paste job"), and it is your failure to at least admit that it was which is sad. Manxruler (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lise Lindbæk[edit]

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lise Lindbæk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Grete Prytz Kittelsen an expatriate?[edit]

Hi Manxruler! I noticed that you added the category "Norwegian expatriates in the United States" to Grete Prytz Kittelsen. According to one of the sources used, Kittelsen still resides in Oslo, in the apartment designed by her ex-husband Arne Korsmo (as of 2008). Are you aware of a source that indicates otherwise? decltype (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, makes sense. I'm not familiar with the expatriate category. decltype (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! decltype (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes S. Andersen[edit]

A future Good Article candidate? Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to nominate it when it's, say, 96% ready, because it might take weeks or months before someone reviews it. I don't know what more it needs, though, other than a longer lead section, and maybe a bibliography. An image... possibly? A native English speaker should do a copyedit, at least someone's always done that to "my" GAs. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures in VG; perhaps one of them could be lifted under fair use? Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a number of newspaper articles; could I perhaps email them to you? If you go to my user page, then click "e-mail this user" I'll answer with the articles as attachments. As for the image, should we look for one from the 40s, 50s or 60s? Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing else obvious. His SOE file is still closed to the public, and even if it were open, delving into that would probably be crossing into the line of original research. In some ofthe other cases I've used recommendations for British honours to help fill out details, and some people might see even that as a step too far. David Underdown (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johannes S. Andersen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominate for WP:GAC now? Remember, it might take months before it's actually reviewed. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Oceanh and myself can be tasked to tackle the concerns that arise during review. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This native English speaker did a copyedit, but did not find too much to fix. Thanks for the opportunity to learn about a great patriot, even if he was a little rough around the edges. Chris the speller (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Norman Lind[edit]

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Lind, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Habikino shooting[edit]

Unless you have a source that contradicts the Japanese language reference I added regarding the murder weapon being a rifle, please do not revert it. If you cannot understand Japanese, that is fine -- but unless you have relevant sources that contradict mine, WP:BOP applies. armagebedar (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on your talk page. Manxruler (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The Japanese versions I've seen (including the one I used as a reference) clearly say that the (only) murder weapon was a "rifle" (ライフル) as opposed to a "shotgun" (ショットガン or 散弾銃), and being that this incident took place in Japan I'm inclined to trust Japanese-language sources since they are usually the basis for foreign-language reporting. armagebedar (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Odd Starheim[edit]

On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Starheim, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shipwrecks in 1940[edit]

I saw you, sneaking in when the {{inuse}} was displayed! Anyway, I've finished with this one for now. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily there were no edit conflicts. You must have been working on a different section to the one I was on. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge carrier[edit]

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd guess that in this case it was semi-solid effluent. The ship in question was one of a fleet of four. I'd imagine that the discharged the sludge well offshore as a means of disposal. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gerda Grepp[edit]

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerda Grepp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kristian Welhaven[edit]

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristian Welhaven, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Landsverk L-120[edit]

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Landsverk L-120, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hjalmar Welhaven[edit]

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hjalmar Welhaven, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Odd Lindbäck-Larsen[edit]

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odd Lindbäck-Larsen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hønningstad[edit]

Hey. Do you know if the Hønningstad aircraft are supposed to be 'Hønningstad' or 'Hönningstad' (ø or ö)? Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Johannes S. Andersen[edit]

The article Johannes S. Andersen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Johannes S. Andersen for things which need to be addressed. Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've read the first part of the book, and have now reached the part where he meets Ruth. This is on page 114 (and it says that they married in 1938, but I'm inclined to think that's an error). Now I in no way understand that Andersen's first marriage lasted until 1931. It says on page 42 that Lovise left Andersen after a short time, some months after Andersen lost his job at Oslo Lysverker. This was due to financial problems ("det var for sent, han var ikke velkommen lenger, det fantes andre som var bedre i stand til å forsørge en familie"). This happened in 1917 as far as I comprehend. Why would they stay married as long as until 1931, with Andersen in multiple prisons (including in Germany, and he also spent some time in Sweden)? Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What should we write, then? Do we make note of the split-up around 1917 and omit the mention of 1931, or do we make note of the split-up around 1917 and mention that the marriage (may have) lasted until 1931? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that he had a female friend named Nancy (I don't recall any mention of them being intimate, but that's probably because Bjørnsen didn't dare to write it). They agreed to part ways before Andersen was supposed to sail to Canada. In fact he was all set for the journey when he decided to say goodbye one last time and in doing so stumbled upon a police officer who recognized him (pp. 100-101). Also, in Hamburg he hanged around with two not-so-beautiful (!) prostitutes (pp. 80-81)
  - I added it; chronologically it belongs someplace in the middle of the section "Criminal career". I find this very hard to do because Bjørnsen hardly mentions the month or day anywhere. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good Work, I promoted the article to GA status but I hope you continue to expand the article but. --Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't have happened without you either :) Have a happy rest of break, and I hope your master's thesis will come out as good. I mean, why wouldn't it? Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Dagfin Dahl[edit]

First World War

During the Battles of Narvik lt. col. Dahl was the sole Norwegian officer with previous battle experience, having fought as young lieutenant in a British unit at the Battle of the Somme in 1916.[3]

Your source is not a primary historic source; it's about war disablement pension. Source (in Norwegian): [...] Han var i hvert fall den eneste med tidligere krigserfaring. Som ung løytnant deltok oberstløytnant Arne Dahl i en engelsk avdeling i det blodige slaget ved Somme i Nord-Frankrike under første verdenskrig. [...] Og i alle fall den eneste som tidligere hadde deltatt i krigshandlinger. ... Som ung løytnant deltok han i en engelsk avdeling i slaget ved Somme Frankrike 1916.

He did not fight in the Somme Offensive. He was assistant military attaché to Britain and Belgium between 1916-1919<ref>Haga</ref>.

The official policy of Norway before, during, and after World War I was neutralism. A. D. Dahl visited the British forces at the Somme front after the battle as the Norwegian assistant military attaché. ... and my source is Arne Dagfin Dahl himself in several meetings between 1975-1983. WZen 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book|ref=haga|last= Haga|first= Arnfinn|title= Alta bataljon 1940|url= http://www.nb.no/utlevering/nb/ccbba31cf7f77555908ed09dc69369c4#&struct=DIV276|accessdate=2010-04-02|year= 1998|publisher= J. W. Cappelens forlag|location= Oslo|language= Norwegian|isbn= 82-02-17629-8|page=240}}

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source question[edit]

I feel dirty for having used Folk og Land as a reference over at Johannes Kringlebotn. The following facts are referenced by FoL:

Birthdate (corroborated by the Norwegian athletics statistics page)
Places he lived. Fatherhood. (I added a brotherhood, cf same father + same places they lived)
Membership in BUL (corroborated by the Norwegian athletics statistics page)
Membership in two organizations, support of the Liberal Party
Writings in two newspapers, starting date in Folkeviljen
Small prison sentence

What I did not add:

Supreme Court sentence. Touchy material coming from such a source.
Him being first deputy to Parliament. Not corroborated by NSD POLSYS.

Feel free to remove anything that's unacceptable. Geschichte (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Mowinckel[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your great help with the actress Agnes Mowinckel, in particular the nice picture! The picture has already found its way to DYK. It also makes it possible to try a GA nomination. Oceanh (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.1[edit]

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.1, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.2[edit]

On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.2, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.3[edit]

On 15 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.3, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian monitors[edit]

Sorry, I just noticed your comment on my talk page; I've been a bit busy of late. So does what else does Thomassen say? Who designed Skorpionen? So Trudvang and maybe Thor were repeats of Mjølner, just built in Horten? Does he provide stats for any of these ships? Feel free to update the articles on all these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kristian Laake[edit]

On 3 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristian Laake, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgica[edit]

Hmm, the source I used clearly gives a renaming to Isfjord in 1917, and states that she was scuttled by the F-BEF. Looking at the linked article, I'd say that it needs to be split into two separate articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your source stated that she was renamed back to Belgica and it seems pretty clear that she was. Re naming of ships, I generally go by the name which is most significant, in this case Belgica as that was the name she was known by most of her career, and also launched under and sank under. Dabs in this case should be as I've suggested, per WP:MOSSHIP, with redirect from other names (with and without prefix, linked from dab pages as appropriate). Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, reading between the lines, she was attacked on 19 May by the Luftwaffe, and then scuttled on 7/8 June when the F-BEF withdrew. Sure, the article can be reworded to give details of the air attack, and the claim of scuttling. If the date of the withdrawal of the F-BEF can be verified, then that can go in too. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narvik Campaign[edit]

Dear Manxruler, I have placed a link in the Land Campaign section of the Narvik Campaign page. I hope this will be suitable to you. It links the Landing Craft Assault (LCA) as the craft carrying the French Foreign Legionnaires. Though not central to your Narvik narrative it is, nevertheless, important history for the LCA as this was the first operational use of the type. Thanks for a most informative Narvik Wikipage. AmesJussellR (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lom prisoner of war camp[edit]

On 18 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lom prisoner of war camp, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lippe[edit]

Do you have any information on Jakob von der Lippe? I read in passing that he was Commanding Admiral for some time. I believe he is the latter person mentioned here. Other than that I have found exactly nothing. Geschichte (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting[edit]

One Martha Schrøder was a Corporal in the "Norwegian Women's Corps" during WWII. Interesting. Is there any info on this? Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an off-wiki question really, but is it correct to call HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892) in 1914 (excluding the regatta) a militær patruljebåt? It was not a skip? Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Erik Qvam, I commented out "of World War II" because I was not sure. He was a military officer and did receive the Defence Medal, which indicates that he fought in the war. But I still can't be sure. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have info on him, then I would be delighted to see it added! He was more notable than I thought, it seems. I added him because I read through Sannheten om militærvesenet for my master's thesis. --- By the way, do we even have an article about Major General Erichsen? I must admit to not knowing that person or his first name. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Bjørnfjell Station[edit]

Thanks for your fixes! Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HNoMS Tor (1939)[edit]

On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Tor (1939), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the Germans invaded Norway in 1940, the crew of the incomplete Sleipner class destroyer Tor scuttled their vessel at the shipyard and joined the land forces fighting the invasion? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE ships pronouns[edit]

Its not a belief, more something that annoys me. No other non-living thing (thats what an inanimate object is, if Ive got that right) is referred to as he or she as far as Im aware, so I dont get why ships which technically are genderless as referred to as she. Although Ill accept that this isnt getting me anywhere and stop changing them before someone accuses me of vandalism and bans me. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Weserübung[edit]

Hi Manxruler. Thanks for your help. As you can see I'm new here. There's a lot of functions I cannot master yet, but it will come.

I know about verifying data, but somthing is puzzling me: when for example a number is mentioned in the article 'Operation Weserübung' that the germans landed a 1.000 troops in Copenhagen, it is not correct and there is no citation. So why demand citation immediatly when corrected? user:kredsner —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Weserübung[edit]

Don't be so impatient with me :~) I haven't really figured out how these templates work yet.

But more important: there must be a limit for citations or else we're ending up in every sentence - maybe every second word - needs citation and that's ridicolous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kredsner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources are books, but one of them is in the form of a parlaiment report which has no ISB number. So how to quote that correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kredsner (talk 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the report has been published. It can be accessed through any danish library. Kredsner (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now I think I get it. Kredsner (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear manxruler. I do this because this article is in a poor state. It's written by someone who doesn't know enough the invasion of Denmark. I might not have gotten all the tecnicalities right yet, but this article has a LOT of faults and inaccuracies, and it's only backed up by one - english - book. That's too thin, especially when I have a whole study here filled with primary and secondary sources.

The name of the article itself for example is highly doubtful. There was no 'Battle of Denmark'. It was an invasion with a few skirmishes. Do you usually call that 'a battle'? It makes no sense compared to 'The Battle of Brittain' or 'The Battle of Oslo'. I haven't changed the title though - because that calls for a broader discussion.

A small example of inaccuracy is the place of the first fighting which you (or whoever) names 'Lundtoftebjerg'. There is no such place in Denmark. There is though a small village a few kms north of the border 'Lundtoft' and a small hill just south of it that's called 'Lundtoftbjerg' - without an 'e'.

Another example: The commander of Fort Middelgrund didn't hesitate. He ordered a warningshot fired, but thanks to newly arrived recruits on the fort, they couldn'y make the cannon work. And they in fact had orders NOT to shoot for real, because the entire danish fleet had not been ordered on alert. (The coastal defense was under command of the fleet).

A third example: it's highly impropable that the landings on Funen had the purpose to cut of Jutland. The important thing was to capture and control the Little Belt Bridge in order to keep it intact. The first thing the germans did on arrival was to establish anti-aircraftguns.

A forth example: according to the military reports from the personel at Værløse Airfield the time of the attack was 0525 hrs - not 0545. Which corresponds with other information from the royal castle, where commanding general W.W.Prior just before he entered a national council with the prime minister, king Christian X and others - at 0530 hrs - recieved the message that Værløse was under attack.

And I could go on and on ...

Maybe you should acknowledge my expertice in this matter and work together on a more truthfull article instead of being offended by some missing tecnicalities. Isn't it more important that the information is correct rather than being wrong but cited correctly?

I'm just trying to make this article better. Kredsner (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palatia: steamship or motorship?[edit]

Hi, I started an article on the ship Palatia, which was sunk outside Lindesnes in 1942. With 986 persons killed in the incident, it is the second largest ship accident in Norwegian waters (after Rigel).

The SNL encyclopedia article says "M/S Palatia", while my book source says it probably was a steamship (with a note saying that their sources differ). Do you have any more details on this ship? Oceanh (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors[edit]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks[edit]

Hoaxes can be speedied under CSD-G3 (vandalism), but I started an AFD to get it settled. Thanks for the note, I notice the user who created Battle of Akureyri also has edited Bombing of the Vatican a lot, seemingly inserting dubious references. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for MS Palatia (1928)[edit]

On 29 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MS Palatia (1928), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the sinking in October 1942 of the German prisoner transport Palatia off Lindesnes is the second deadliest ship disaster in Norwegian history? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tankers[edit]

My preference is to stick to MV (or MS as 2nd choice). Although ship prefix does note that MT stands for Motor Tanker, ST could be Steam Trawler, Steam Tug or Steam Tanker, thus I use SS for steam powered tankers. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

In a few words, the issues are:

Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your recent note, the citation templates are still grossly malformed but represent a "fast and dirty" method of providing reference and bibliographic notations for the "great unwashed." Full disclosure: I am not a Luddite as I had pioneered the use of library cataloguing for a decade, but those templates were meticulously designed and provided a stable and consistent output. The Wikiwacky templates were all, repeat all, created by computer nerds (no disrespect here, if I am addressing one...) not cataloguers or reference librarians. They do not follow any established cataloguing style guide but instead are a mismash of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide, which is okay for some undergraduate work, but is woefully inadequate to cope with multiple authors, (still malformed elements as they do not have "and", nor first, last name entry for second authors, do not accommodate et al. and rely on the user understanding what the input change has to be) titles identified as main and sub-titles for derivative work, no place for publishing location in the majority of the cite templates, publisher data not given a parameter, dates of publication, second or other editions, and still use either an ISO or other dating convention not consistent with the body of the article and still incorporating ISBN/ISSNs which are entirely an option "pointer" for a bookseller and not found in any other style guides. I tried for months to have the citation template designers redo their designs, to no avail, finally being summarily dismissed with a "harummpf, don't use them if you don't like them, nobody tells you to use them..." I can rewrite the templates, but it takes so much work, that I simply find it easier to write out the proper form in a "scratch" cataloguing manner that hearkens back to the dawn of library cataloguing that as a reference librarian I employed regularly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Ole Raggie[edit]

In 1981, Ragnarsson was the vice president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society. Ragnar J. Ragnarsson was born 1945 in the USA, but has lived most his life in Iceland. He began flight training at the age of 17 and two years later earned his Commercial Pilot's Licence. Following a brief period of 'free-lance' flying DC-3s on domestic routes in Iceland, he entered a business carrier in foreign trade in which he is still actively engaged. Despite leaving a career in aviation, Ragnar has pursued a life-long love for aviation alongside his professional business career, and is still an active private pilot and aircraft owner. He was co-founder and past vice president of IPMS Iceland, co-founder and past president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society and past president of the Icelandic Aero Club. He has been involved in the recovery of two historical World War 2 aircraft, both of which have since been restored - a Fairey Battle bomber, on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon and a Northrop N3PB floatplane on display with the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum. For his participation in the latter as recovery team leader, and his research of the type's World War 2 operational history with the RAF's No 330 "Norwegian" Sqn, he was awarded the Order of St Olav, Knight 1st Class, by the King of Norway in 1981. Ragnar has spent many years researching wartime maritime aviation in the Atlantic and has written articles for both the Icelandic and foreign specialist aviation press, as well as contributing to a number of books on the subject. He has an exhaustive account of the building of the N-3PB and was involved with the Northrop company in rediscovery and the restoration of the recovered c/n 320. His involvement gave him access to the Northrop archives and his detailed article corrects many of the previous errors rampant in the N-3PB saga. The article is nearly book-length and is exhaustively researched. I would give him a pass here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both the Orlikon and Fabrique Nationale armament was included in the original specifications made by Cmdr. Østby at his specific request at the factory, and included in the contract signed on 12 March 1940. When Norwegian armament was to be substituted, it was due to the lack of availability of these original specified weapons at the source? go figure, was there a war going on? How about we include both of these variances from Ragnarsson and Bjørn Hafsten and Tom Arheim in the form of a note. I see these differences as most likely arising from the tumultuous period from March–April 1940. The original specifications of 7 March 1940 did not even have a third crew member, that was added later and Østby expanded his requirements to include not only a gunner's station but also the provision of a camera mounted in the rear cockpit, all changes that were not in the original contract. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Kirrages's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WQA and the removal of citation templates[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The issue is at WP:WQA#user:Bzuk and the removal of citation templates. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tirpitz[edit]

Hey, thanks for adding that information on the Spitzbergen operation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Free Norwegian Forces" to "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile"?[edit]

Since you have contributed to the article I wonder if you have an opinion on the matter. See talk page. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi! Why have you uploaded these images: [10][11][12]? You are aware that photographies of people are commisioned as works of arts? --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk. Manxruler (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMY Alexandra[edit]

On 10 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMY Alexandra, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the former British royal yacht Alexandra (pictured), sold to Norway in 1925, was sunk by Luftwaffe bombers when she tried to escape to the United Kingdom in 1940? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced page[edit]

I dont know why you use that book as reference,because that book is history of that island ,and dont describe what actually happened. Is wrong in many case,it was from 7 sept to 9 sept,and germany participated with 608 men of the 349th Infantry Regiment not 600. We can talk on that operation disscuasion page ,no need for abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udisblizbadjoke (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

[13]. Happy constitution day! Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While reading old newspapers today I found a vessel with THE most spectacular name. Behold: SS Vigrid. I made a stub out of it, but I know very little about ships or how we make ship articles. I would be grateful if you could copyedit it (hence the "under construction" tag). Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SS Vigrid would be good enough to make it to the so-called Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, if people understood what Vigrid is. I had Kim Jong-Il featured there some years ago (do you see how heavily vandalized that article has become?). Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for editing it. Why de-link the submarine U-95? Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another fun fact... Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence. I picked up the Lie biography at the library today, before reading about Sunde. Good travel, see you around. Geschichte (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Vigrid[edit]

On 13 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Vigrid, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Norwegian steamer Vigrid was sunk by a German U-boat while carrying Welsh coal to France in 1917? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 DYK medal[edit]

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		You broaden our horizon for Norway's people and ships! Looking forward to more discoveries in that field, Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Manxruler (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK of Baku Museum of Modern Art in Azerbaijan[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in weighing in at the DYK nomination for the Baku Museum of Modern Art. OCNative (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at OCNative's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

War cross with sword[edit]

Are all War Crosses awarded with sword? I have a book in front of me, Ordener by R. N. Torgersen, which says: "Krigskorset er tildelt følgende personer 1941-1949". It doesn't mention sword, other than those with several swords: Sønsteby with 3 and Birksted, Haugland and Leif Larsen with 2. Is Torgersen wrong in not noting who got 1 sword, or is he ommitting it because everyone got 1 sword? Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 people with more than one sword. The sword was awarded by default in the inductions after 18 May 1945, prior to that the statutes said: "When the War Cross is awarded for personal effort in combat, the ribbon has a sword". It was awarded a few times to banners or units, those awards were without sword. The royalty awards were without sword, as were some awards to foreigners and civilians. So there were few awards w/o a sword. “Krigskorset og St. Olavsmedaljen med ekegren” by Gjems-Onstad is the authorative read on the subject, available online at nb.no. Paaln (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone got swords, according to the statutes of the War Cross, swords were awarded if the War Cross was awarded to "personal efforts in action", while people who had been awarded the War Cross for "other special services to the defence of Norway" did not get a sword. Should a person repeatedly qualify for the War Cross, said person would get a star for his award. The link I provided is to a book by Erik Gjems-Onstad, which should provide all needed info. Cheers! Manxruler (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I'm dropping Ordener as a source on the subject. Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Eliassen[edit]

Hi! The obituary of a Gunnar Eliassen claims that he served at Oscarsborg in 1940. This might be a lot to ask, but would you happen to have a book which can corroborate the claim? Are the grunts serving at the fortress mentioned in those books? Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for asking. I was at the university library and did not notice the blast when it happened. I was on my way to the suburbs when I heard about it and am safe. But I could very well have been at the workers' movement library at Youngstorget. Not good. I am guessing that you too are ok? Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category question[edit]

Hi, I hope you have time for a short question: I stubbed Per Græsli, but since he died of illness, is it correct to categorize him in Category:Norwegian civilians killed in World War II? What is the convention? Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

norway campaign[edit]

Light Cruisers are not major warships. not then, not now, not ever. No I am not confusing major warships with capital ships. I edited out capital ship on this article 4 years ago. I am basing this on common sense and my extensive knowledge. So answer me this why is it so important to YOU that this small light cruiser be considered a major warship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.67 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light cruisers are major warships; generally anything destroyer-sized and above are considered major warships. Here's a good rule of thumb: if it can operate as part of a blue-water formation, it's a major warship. Minor warships are vessels like gunboats, coastal minelayers, etc. Even without that, given that Dr. Grove has established expertise on the subject area, and you do not, I think we'll take his word over yours. If you don't stop edit-warring over this, I'll block the IP addresses you've been using. Consider this your only warning on this. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol i have lots of ip addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.152.53 (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can also lock the page, which will render all of those IPs useless. As for your contention, Grove is certainly not alone in describing Königsberg as a major warship: The Great Crusade by HP Willmott, WWII Warships by David Lyon, The British Fleet Air Arm in World War II by Mark Barber, Naval Battles of World War II by Geoffrey Bennett, The Royal Navy in World War II by Robert Jackson, Hitler's Stuka Squadrons by John Ward, and this is just from the first two pages of results. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Interest[edit]

Yes... I was suggesting possible places of interests, even though there are so many categories sites from people who already took some from the subcategories, it happens as a habit for the usual majority. Thanks.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...A WWII place of interest where citizens may directly type in a few words, such as "World War II sites", but, as usual, so many users keep to forget or already know their links are already subcategorized. Personally for me, I believe the link can work for both. In other words, "World War II sites" is the main branch, thus... prisoner camps, memorials, or beachhead subcategories are the linked minor branches, or connected links, the "World War II sites". Ok. Thanks.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 20:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMMhmm. Of course, to find "places of interests" (defined of, especially, interesting by the reader or just a main site) by just going to Category:World War II. Yes, I have read WP:SUBCAT, however, like I said that's my factual opinion just to connect categories and subcategories like so many pages on this Wiki. Later.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, subcategories are not allowed to be connected with other categories, although, as usual, some categories are mingled with sub-categories which are categorized inside the category box. Of course it doesn't work, but anyway astonishing user page. Carry on.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it is to be more fluent in English grammar, and yes it wasn't sourceful, sorry if I bothered, don't try to make a world war out of such an edit. Thanks--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the grammar of your comments, sometimes don't make sense, but please end the conversation war by some minor edits on comment grammar. I know you are a tremendous user, to various contributions on Wikipedia, and I have no problem with just a little chat, or your terrific sincerity, and if anything else to comes along interesting, about a new major article I might notify you, such as the 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan. If you would like nothing else further, that's fine with me! Carry on.:)--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN[edit]

Once again, Manxruler it is not overcategorization and it was only a few so stop whining about and keep the peace with new users.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You also forgot to delete Santo Tomas Internment Camp listed, however it is free for edit users, if in the appropriate sector, for everyone.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read the comments made by myself and other users at your talk page. Please stop doing what you have been told repeatedly by numerous users not to do. It is absolutely overcategorization. And please stop shouting at me. Manxruler (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what your doing only I see many categories on the wiki page overly categorized, but especially the added Santo Tomas Internment Camp, but I was wasn't try to shout, yell, groan, or scream, but I just wish you stay safe out there, thank you.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Turtagrø[edit]

On 16 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turtagrø, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Turtagrø was the location for the first climbing school in Norway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turtagrø.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII ship losses[edit]

Hi, I understand your point, but my thinking is that by adding that they were losses directly attributable to the war, those that were not lost through beligerrant action actually stand out. It also give the chance to add in details of the relevant action where appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to discussion on these issues at WP level. Why not start a thread at WT:SHIPWRECK and let WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST know of the discussion. If there is consensus for your view, then I won't stop you making the changes. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4[edit]

On 24 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4 floatplane, introduced in 1918, was the Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service's first purpose-built trainer aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Koht[edit]

I have been pushing Halvdan Koht gradually closer to GA status. It still needs work. Would you be willing, and do you have the time, to help improve thin sections such Halvdan Koht#Second World War? Thanks in advance, Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation with C. J. Hambro. Now you know :) Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The task is still open -- hehe -- and now it's holiday season :) Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Re Hambro, I'm also glad that it's Xmas time; I have been delaying this a bit too long now. ;-) --Eisfbnore ^talk 22:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neato. I'll see what I can find. On Koht, I've tracked down some info, and some on Hambro too. Coming up in the coming days. Manxruler (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder? Geschichte (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry. Forgot about that. How about some Spanish Civil War info for a start, after work today? Manxruler (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most welcome. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) PS - as a start ;)[reply]

Yes, as a start. After that some 1940 stuff, and then the rest of the war. Been working a lot over overtime the last couple of days. Probably tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the pre-war stuff now. Manxruler (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now nominated. I see Hugo Munthe-Kaas as a possible GA candidate someday in the future, though with a thorough cleanup. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep working on Koht, when time permits, tons of travelling right now. I know Hugo's war-related history quite well, the present article doesn't reflect that side of his life well enough. Manxruler (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a gift[edit]

Thought you might appreciate this item. As a lover of ships and vintage stamps I collect Ships on Stamps along with the other types. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1940 shipwrecks[edit]

Thank for the minor tweaking of the various 1940 lists. They're coming on nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wrecksite, probably not as reliable as it could be, but better than nothing. Of course, once a vessel is listed on wrecksite, it gives clues for further research. I've also noticed errors when going through the Naval History entries, and am inclined to believe them if there is a conflict of info. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Giske.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giske.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on HMS Hesperus[edit]

Please be more careful when adding links. I was in the middle of finishing off the article when you added several useful links. I had an under construction banner posted and wasn't expecting anyone to add to the article while I was working on it. Please be a little more cautious when adding material to articles in this situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk. Manxruler (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII shipwrecks[edit]

Season's greetings! OK, the master plan is this - finish 1941 from Wrecksite (W-Z to do), then do 1942 - 45 from Naval History and Wrecksite (in that order). Once all war years have separate articles per month, other sources can be added in, such as Warsailors, Convoyweb, Uboat.net and Ubootwaffe. Your correctiond are appreciated as always. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. I'll use Miramar as well. Merry Christmas! Manxruler (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued oversight of these lists is appreciated. Pity you can't spare time to expand the lists but it's no big deal. Coming together nicely now, aren't they? Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mj. Yeah, they're coming along now. I barely have the time to go through the additions you make, and amend them where I see the need, you sure do work fast. As to adding ships, I did contribute pretty heavily to 29 August 1943. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings![edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Dabbing[edit]

Hi, If I dab by builder, there is a reason for it. SS Komet (Seebeck, 1912), SS Komet (Laxevaags, 1912). That said, I note that the first one was a trawler and not a coaster, so is unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Keep up the good work on the WWII shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, I assumed that the other ship was a coaster and didn't check. I thought that ST stood for "Steam Tug". Dabbing by builder is sometimes necessary though. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there's quite a few tug articles at ST Foo titles. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SS Lotos[edit]

Apologies, my mistake. I checked the Nov 1940 list and couldn't see it there, and then missed the wrong year when I looked at the source again. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bye DPL bot[edit]

I'd rather opt out of that function. Manxruler (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post from Kiefer Wolfowitz[edit]

Hi Manxruler... You are mentioned on user talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as a possible sock of Rlevse, as am I. I have started a discussion here which you might be interested in seeing / contributing to (or not, at your option). EdChem (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Responded at his talk. Manxruler (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language templates[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monmouth Cap[edit]

Hi, your concern with Monmouth Cap was a good one and has been fixed. However it is about to miss the bus for St Davids Day... could you assist if you have time as you will be able to spot immediately that your issue has been thoroughly dealt with Victuallers (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC) oops my mistake! Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the offer. I have pinged Nikkimania and the DYK talk page so hopefully we will find a "white knight". St Davids Day doesnt start here for another 14 hours, but obviously its tricky to elbow an article to the front of the queue at midnight Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Endurance[edit]

Re this edit, what is wrong with The Times as a source? I'm not sure your deletion of cited text was the best edit that could have been made there. Maybe you'd reconsider? Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this brings up the general use of newspapers from the war years as a source of info. Some 70 years on, if further research has shown the source to be incorrect for whatever reason, then the source can be safely disregarded. If a claim is known to be false (e.g. sinking of Monte Rosa), then that can also be safely disregarded. Heck, if all the ships were sunk during WWII that were claimed to have been sunk, there'd be hardly any room left for the seas! Of course, all newspapers during that period were censored and used for propaganda purposes. I'd expect it to be the same with Axis newspapers, only worse. This shouldn't prevent us from using such sources bearing in mind the prevailing circumstances of the time.

I get your point about "hiding" military cargo, and surely toys and cigarettes would be a valid cover story? Is there any evidence that she was not carrying the claimed cargo? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a very good argument, and I accept your points. Have you got much more to do on the article? I think that between us we've probably got a GA here. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no page numbers for The Empire Ships because I forgot to include them when doing the various lists of Empire ships. Maybe worth yelling at the WP for assistance with this. As to where the article is housed, it was a toss-up between the two names. I chose Empire Endurance as the title as the most significant event in the ships history (her sinking) happened under that name. Replies to my usual talk page plz, am currently on a public computer hence use of alt account. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the GAR re the issues raised. Have you come across any photos of Alster in your books? There is a photo of a ship named Alster on Photoship, but I don't know if it is our Alster or the one built in 1914. My personal opinion is that the article can manage perfectly well without an image. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		Awarded to Manxruler for his excellent work in bringing the SS Empire Endurance article up to GA class. I laid the foundation, but I couldn't have done it without you! Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was my pleasure, a truly fascinating ship. Manxruler (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the possibility of a FAC at WT:MILHIST. Dana boomer has offered some advice and also to give a detailed critique of the article, which I've asked him to do on the article's talk page. I've got the article watchlisted, and I suspect you have too. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many type of horsepower, hence the different figures quoted. Looks like we need to try to work out what kind of horsepower is meant here. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to ask at WT:SHIPS about this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indizierte pferdestärken is Indicated horsepower. Will sort out the redirect. Looks like the lists of ship launches for 1927/28 will need a tweak too.Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if is is anything to do with the 1,000/6,500 issue. We can definitely state the two different powers with sources though. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleipner Commanders[edit]

Ernst Ullring was still a Kommandørkaptein (Commander) when he was decorated in December 1942 with the Norwegian War Cross with Swords (see http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Ullring), and therefore could not have been Captain when he was skipper of Sleipner. And since Thore Horve was Lt. Commander when he commanded HMS Glaisdale 1942-1943 (see http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4680.html), it stands to reason that he was not a Captain when he previously commanded Sleipner. Cheers, --Cosal (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5[edit]

On 11 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the scout floatplane Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5, which had its first flight in November 1918, was the first tractor aircraft designed in Norway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.210 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks[edit]

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.4.165 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you[edit]

Golden Wiki Award

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.241 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SS Sarensen?[edit]

The USS Kingfisher (AM-25) article states that she assisted a SS Sarensen which had run aground. Is this a typo. Plimsoll ship data finds nothing for Sarensen or Sorensen. Maybe Miramar can confirm name/flag etc? Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. Will leave the ship off the list for now. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Uganda in 1918[edit]

Nope, you didn't miss anything. I did! I forgot to change the url (fixed). Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe you're right. I'm getting tired now. Will look at it in the morning if you haven't already done the honours by then. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noved the original SS Uganda article and turned the original title into a shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rose turret DYK nomination[edit]

Hi, Thanks for reviewing this article's DYK nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CS Syren[edit]

Hi Manxruler, haven't spoke with you in a few months, since we were working on ship's lists. I have just created the page CS Syren a few days ago and would like to get the title italicized but can't quite remember how to do this. If I am not mistaken I believe it was you who once told me how to change an existing title of the ship so the second half of name comes out italicized. i.e. CS Syren. Is this done with 'Move' somehow? I could experiment but don't want to do so with 'moving' a page title. Any help/advice would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.7[edit]

On 27 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.7, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.7 floatplane trainer was intended as an interim solution, yet it served for several years after the introduction of its successor, the M.F.8? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.7.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Carabinieri (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor Barnstar[edit]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Such is the nature of most your edits, but the major edits are highly and equally appreciated! Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SS Bio-Bio[edit]

Chilean merchant ship Bio-Bio was lost by fire in early 1935, but I can't pin down the exact date the fire started. Does Miramar have any details? Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.6[edit]

On 5 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.6, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.6 floatplane trainer was the Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service's last pusher aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.6.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HSwMS[edit]

I say we go ahead and move key ones - like Orion - now. We have no significant opposition, and no concern as a body from WP:Ships. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Would you kindly make the announcement on WT:MILHIST that we are moving them - makes it look more above-board? Then move the ones you want to move and designate the ones you want me to move. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen it, and moved HSwMS Orion (A201). Which ones do you want to do? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way forward for Saga, Thule, and Thor is to create stubs for the Swedish vessels. You're the subject matter expert; here I'm just an extra pair of hands. But I do think the best way forward to create the articles. Surely there's Svwiki articles we can crib? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and behold HSwMS Saga (1877) - just a *very* rough start. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla Fersen is fixed. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ship article[edit]

Thought you might be interested since it's about WWII and ships: Kvarstad vessels is a topic we lack an article about – there are two articles over at no:Kvarstadbåtene and sv:Kvarstadsbåtarna (featured article). Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this mention of the Kvarstad ships and started a first version of the article, since I have access to some books where the subject is discussed. Of the ten vessels involved in the escape effort (Operation Performance) in March/April 1942, only Skytteren seems to have a Wikipedia article. Buccaneer is mentioned in the List of shipwrecks in April 1942, while Storsten is unexpectedly placed in the 1941 list, and the three other wrecks are not listed (at least I did not find them). Oceanh (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. Great to have you on board, Oceanh. I'll get to it too as I retrieve my books from the cardboard boxes. Manxruler (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New development: User talk:Eisfbnore#Kvarstadbåtene. Geschichte (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong guess[edit]

Nope, not quite. The Times website was partly down this morning, could search for articles but not view them. Hence the start on the 1927 list. Seems to be OK now so will finish off and make sure refs are all in correct order. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry 'bout that. Just assumed since you had reached the end of Dec 1928 and started on 1927. Onwards, then. Manxruler (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIA bombers in Indonesia[edit]

Thankyou for your edits to Allen Lawrence Pope and William Beale (aviator). I take your point that the introduction to each of those articles may have been too short, so I have now expanded them. Are they full enough now?

Thankyou also for adding redlinks to SS Aquila, SS Armonia and SS Flying Lark. I've found Lloyd's Register entries for Aquila and Flying Lark with their vital statistics and their original names, so I will try to write their articles. I have no source for Armonia or any former name(s) she may have carried. You seem to have found what year she was borne. Please will you direct me where to find Armonia's history?

I have added a new articles for KRI Hang Tuah and SS San Flaviano, which are two of the ships that Beale bombed and sank. No-one has tagged either of those articles yet, so I hope they are alright. I have what I think are enough sources to create MV Daronia, which had a near miss when one of Beale's bombs hit it but failed to explode, so I'll probably create that article next.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GibraltarpediA[edit]

Hi there, have you heard of Gibraltarpedia? Please see how you can contribute here and join in! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2003? Another visit should be imminent! :) I noticed you'd visited Gib which is why I thought you may want to contribute. Any particular interests? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Norwegian but there are definitely plenty of ship wrecks (as well as aircraft!) all around the Rock of Gibraltar. This is something the Gibraltar Museum's diving team is showing an interest in. The idea is to geotag all future wreck articles which could then be explored via augmented reality apps... Although there is a some structure to the project, anyone is free to contribute what they like as long as it has a connection with Gibraltar and/or the surrounding area. There are few if any restrictions. Hope to see you around :) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 22:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be great, cheers! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 00:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kr. Løken[edit]

At a first glimpse, between glimpsing the Olympics, I found an article re his 75. birthday i A-posten in 1959. It mentioned him being called Kongo-Løken, and a search in Nasjonalbiblitekets site nb.no on that came up with this. A problem with Aftenpostens archive is that the ocr sometimes mixes ø's for o's. So there is a little double work going on here ... There, found it, his obit in Aftenposten 7 March -61. Printscreen, edit and post here? Paaln (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is Paaln (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about the pages. It was page 3, evening edition 30 July 1959 and page 15, morning edition 7 March 1961. Paaln (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1926 wrecks[edit]

Hi, can you find an exact date for the loss of Kwaian Maru No.2 in August 1926 please? Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got the correct ship despite my unintentional typo. Fits in as it was reported in 26 Aug edition of The Times. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kristian Løken[edit]

On 16 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristian Løken, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Norwegian officer Kristian "Kongo" Løken fought against Germany in both the First and the Second World Wars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristian Løken. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Nordnorge (1923)[edit]

On 25 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Nordnorge (1923), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Hurtigruten steamer Nordnorge was sunk by Royal Navy warships, while employed by the Germans in a false flag operation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Nordnorge (1923). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HNoMS Storm (1898)[edit]

On 20 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Storm (1898), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1898 torpedo boat Storm was the only Norwegian warship to fire a torpedo at the invading Germans during the 1940 Norwegian Campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HNoMS Storm (1898). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article of good quality. Nice work! Oceanh (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for MTB 345[edit]

On 15 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MTB 345, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Norwegian-British crew of MTB 345 were tortured and executed as a result of Adolf Hitler's Commando Order? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MTB 345. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military exercise grounds in Norway[edit]

Regarding Madlamoen which is a redlink in Capture of Egersund, there are some sources. But when bluelinking it, should we also create a Category:Military exercise grounds in Norway? There are many possibilites: Gardeleiren, Heistadmoen, Terningmoen, Jørstadmoen, Madlamoen, Kadettangen, Setermoen most of which have articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of beaches in Indonesia[edit]

Dear Manxruler. I've done necessary revisions on the article List of beaches in Indonesia nominated for the DYK. If you have the time, please check the revised nomination. :) --Rochelimit (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. I'm done with the other citations. Check the DYK nomination alstublieft :).--Rochelimit (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. Another friendly reminder. BTW Is it ok for me to notify you every time I make a revision? or do you prefer to catch the changes through your watchlist by yourself? I'm ok with reminding you, feel more assured after doing this (changes in your talkpage appear in your mail).--Rochelimit (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. Decided to simplify the wording of that last ref problem. Sorry for the late respond (time difference issue, West Indonesia time)

DYK for Capture of Egersund[edit]

On 9 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capture of Egersund, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while the German conquest of the Norwegian port of Egersund on 9 April 1940 occurred without resistance, popular panic broke out the next day due to rumours of 600 incoming British bombers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Egersund. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Capture of Arendal[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Capture of Arendal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Egersund and Capture of Arendal[edit]

Great articles Capture of Egersund and Capture of Arendal lately! Oceanh (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Capture of Arendal[edit]

On 4 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capture of Arendal, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that five days after the unopposed German capture of Arendal, local citizens formed occupied Norway's first organized resistance group? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Arendal. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion[edit]

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Sirius (1885)[edit]

On 15 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Sirius (1885), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the cargo ship Sirius was sunk by a German bomber during the 1940 Norwegian Campaign, the 55-year-old steamer broke in two lengthwise and "opened up like a book"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Sirius (1885). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shipwrecks in 1944[edit]

I've removed the tag as no discussion was started and other similar lists were left untagged. See my edit summary for reason. . Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in World War I#Neutral states[edit]

Is the description of Norway accurate? Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for the recent thanks, I've been thinking about HGD for a long time and now we got some articles about other family members. On another note - This guy seems notable, are the sources good enough to translate it as is? His recent death is unverifiable at the time though. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naval History[edit]

Aye there, 'Manxruler', How are things on your side of the globe? Last time we spoke, about a year(+)ago you were getting set to move. As I think you know I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. I've been sending a letter similar to this one to WikiProject Ships members as I'm getting set to nominate a couple of articles for GA or perhaps FA if the feedback I get seems promising:
To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plimsoll[edit]

Sorry, I don't know how long the site has been down. Last time it was several months though. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Kommandøren[edit]

On 27 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Kommandøren, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Norwegian steamer Kommandøren was torpedoed and sunk by a drunken crewman on a German E-boat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Kommandøren. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15-inch Dahlgren from USS Catawba[edit]

I've pinged the guy on Commons who took photos of the gun to see if he can provide a pic of the placard to confirm this or not. The ship has been partially stripped by looters, but why would somebody take a massive cannon that isn't very portable and then dump it it Hong Kong harbor? I was going to dump the section if he didn'trespond within my 5 day limit for the DYK, you've just beaten me too it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the original (perhaps poor) entry about the cannon. I did so after a trip to the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence where I viewed the cannon. I took a stunningly average photo of the placard purely so I could google the ships name at home, as I found the story very interesting; needless to say I was disappointed in finding no further information about the cannon. I still have the photo on my phone and can email it to you, also I work walking distance from the museum so additional and better photos would not be an issue. BlakeTin (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are already photos taken in 2008 of the cannon in wikimedia commons (as indicated above by Sturmvogel66), perhaps an image could be added to the article. BlakeTin (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Norwegian people
Thank you, historian, for quality articles on people in history, such as resistance fighter Johannes S. Andersen, and for sharing your fascination with ships such as SS Empire Endurance, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 470th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 470 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Triangle Economic Zone[edit]

I tried my first DYK reviewa after you gave me one on Männergarten, any feedback is welcome. I have done somework on Terje Rollem and I believe Johannes S. Andersen would be cool for the German DYK, i have put him on my translation list. Ha de Serten (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Holst[edit]

Hi, I have started translating the total article about Kai Holst into English, as I am not fluent in English I appreciate all help I can get in copy editing. I hope to have it all translated within a week, with references and all. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried as best as I can do translate the article about Holst, see the article discussion page for more info. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the outstanding issues in the article about Kai Holst, see the discussion page. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HSwMS Äran[edit]

Thanks for fixing this, you beat me to it! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The edit history had a thank icon which I pressed (as much for curiosity as for anything); it doesn't sem to have done anything, but if you get another message of thanks, that'll be what it was. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Littlehailes.
Message added 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Solomon7968 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the close paraphrasing issue but I cannot find more information. I tried in WP:RX for info in a book but till now no response has come. The only info I added is the name of King of Baroda. Not sure if it is enough to pass DYK though. Please take a look. The Legend of Zorro 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New messages. The Legend of Zorro 22:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HMS/HSwMS etc[edit]

Hello (sorry, this again!)
I added a proposal to WT:SHIPNAME a while ago (here), which returned the suggestion to add a reference to NATO naming conventions on the subject. It was mentioned in the WT:SHIPS discussion somewhere, but I’ve drawn a blank on a source for it. Do you have one? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you very much for identifying my mistakes and letting me fix them...........Greatly appreciated! ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NDL navbox[edit]

So that the link goes directly to the article and not via a redirect. Doing this makes the ship's name bold in the template when on that page. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

I'm not sure if your comment "Pre or post guidelines to "...keep DYKs as simple and minimum/efficient as possible"? I still find it shocking to actually plan on making such a minimal effort." was in response to me. Anyway, my removed response was "I don't understand what you're saying. I have nothing to do with what you have in quotations and I never plan on making articles short. It just turns out that way to do a variety of reasons, such as there not being anymore content that I can find, other content not being relevant, offline content, and subscription based content." SL93 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mona Røkke[edit]

On 23 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mona Røkke, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mona Røkke served as delegate to the United Nations General Assembly starting in 1987? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mona Røkke. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Polish Nobleman[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the ineligibility of other wps as 'references'. May I post the information using the references cited if I eliminate noting that it is posted in pl.wp? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krisnha Prem vs Ronald Nixon[edit]

Thanks for adding categories to Krishna Prem and the redirect page at Ronald Nixon. But it seems strange to have a category in a redirect page. Plus, wouldn't it be useful for those on the Krishna Prem page to know that a category for British WWI Pilots exists? The fact that Krishna Prem does not sound like a British name of that period should not be a deciding factor it seems to me. Although I admit it would be confusing to have the category on both pages. It seems to me that we should move the category onto the Krishna Prem page. Or are there documented procedures that cover this type of case and endorse what you've done? What do you say, shall we move the category? Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Presearch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done23:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nansenflua[edit]

On 22 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nansenflua, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the exiled HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen was wrecked off the volcanic island Jan Mayen in November 1940, after striking a previously uncharted rock west-southwest of Eggøya in the northern part of Rekvedbukta? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tungsten[edit]

Hi, I'm planning on nominating the Operation Tungsten article for FA status sometime in the next few days. If you have time to upload those photos of war graves at Tromsø I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ship you may be interested in[edit]

German night fighter direction vessel Togo served with the Norwegian Navy at one point in her career. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for City Nord[edit]

On 27 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article City Nord, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that from November 2011 to November 2012, City Nord was the largest shopping center in Northern Norway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/City Nord. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Harrias ^talk 15:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HNoMS Brand (1898)[edit]

On 8 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HNoMS Brand (1898), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that despite the Norwegian torpedo boat Brand having "exceptionally good" chances at scoring a hit against a group of invading German warships, her commander refrained from opening fire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HNoMS Brand (1898). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MS Awazisan Maru[edit]

The initial should be IJN Imperial Japanese Navy not MS Malaysian Ship. Yosri (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fugitives[edit]

Does F. Abdulhak qualify as a fugitive wanted by Norway? Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SS Admiral Hardy[edit]

The SS Admiral Hardy spent ten years under Norwegian ownership but I've not been able to find out much about this period of her history. Maybe you know of sources that can be used to improve the article? Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look around tomorrow. Just got back from a business trip. Manxruler (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mjroots: Couldn't find anything useful about her Norwegian service, unfortunately. Found a little bit about her German origin, which I just added. Manxruler (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar[edit]

Hi, just thought I'd drop you a quick note to let you know Caesar Hull is now in mainspace. Any additions you might make would be very much appreciated. Thanks again for nudging me along on this as I had been dragging my feet rather. Anyway, cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Caesar Hull[edit]

On 1 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caesar Hull, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Caesar Hull (pictured), a World War II fighter pilot of Southern Rhodesian birth, has memorial monuments dedicated to him in Norway and England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caesar Hull. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French brig Nearque (1804)[edit]

Hi Manxruler, I restored the word "fortunately" with respect to casualties because that word was in the original after-action letter. I could put in quotes once I dig up the original and put in the entire phrase, not just James's paraphrasing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was from James only, and not the original after-action letter, as I had thought. I have reworded it so that it is a direct quote.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian yacht[edit]

Wyvern (vessel) may be of interest to you. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. Thanks. :) Manxruler (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hansen DYK[edit]

I need a third-party opinion from you regarding whether the source for the hook is a RS. Would greatly appreciate it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts ON USS Wasp (CV-7)‎[edit]

So we don't warn a reader that if they follow Wikilinks they remain ignorant? I linked to the DANFS itself (something also frowned upon by some "editors" on Wikipedia) because the USS Whitney (AD-4) page at Wikipedia does not even contain the usual copy of DANFS! What happened to the idea this is something for the reader/user and not some "editor" playground? A reader following the wikilink will be ill served and would be much better off just reading DANFS, itself a bit less that fully fleshed out. Ok, I will flag that Whitney so called "article" instead. Sorry, "we don't do" when it comes to almost misleading the poor innocent stumbling across Wikipedia doesn't sit well with me. For whom are these pages? "Editors" or users and readers seeking information? Palmeira (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please don't yell at me (bolding and exclamation marks). Now, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and instead of going around defending "warnings" about articles that you view as poor, go improve them. And, yes, we do have certain standards to follow when editing articles, which doesn't include going around leaving notes that say "This and this article isn't all that good, don't click it." What do you mean by "editors" in quotation marks? Sounds quite aggressive. Hmm. Manxruler (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And reverts? I've only reverted once, it is you who reverted twice. Manxruler (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the "article" and DANFS. I've neither time nor inclination to correct every article's content. I do think readers and users need to be aware some of the content here is sketchy at best. Yelling? Emphasis is the term. Too many Navy ship "articles" here are nothing but copies of what is officially available at the U.S. Navy's official DANFS site. The one in question didn't even copy that public domain content. I'm interested in historical content incidental to my other interests and projects—not Wikipedia's ideas of protocol and internal links. If some Wikipedia editors are not interested in the user or reader, then I have to question the purpose. If somebody else is interested in copying DANFS into Wikipedia (I am certainly not!) then so be it. As far as Wasp readers are concerned? Beware of garbage Wikilink "articles" and just go to DANFS, yet some here object to external links within "articles" and will "correct" those to Wikilinks—thus the warning note, so go figure. Palmeira (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis, right. Okay. Well, it's your prerogative to feel despondent about the state of Wikipedia's (US?) Navy ship articles. Still, I'd say so fix it, instead of using a note to "rate" an article in another article's page. External links often have a role in articles, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Manxruler (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Some have a viewpoint that "external" links such as the one directly to DANFS are not appropriate and eliminate them in favor of "Wikilinks" and thus I added a note on the total inadequacy of the Wikilink. You delete the note that the Wikilink is inadequate. Someone else eliminates the direct link to DANFS in favor of the "convention" that Wikilinks prevail and the reader is thus sent to junk. Devil and deep blue sea here with that sort of thing going on. Personally, I've got lots more important stuff to do that try to fix every Wiki foolishness. I add cited content and try to give the reader a clue—and that is a pure sideline when I've got time. End of discussion as I don't have much time now. Palmeira (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could see a DANFS ex link being counter-productive would be if it was used in place of a wikilink. Oh, well, best of luck and good night. Manxruler (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnage versus displacement[edit]

Hello Manxruler. I have changed "displacement" to "tonnage" on a few ship articles. Most merchant ships are measured in tonnage such as gross register tonnage, which is a specialised measure of volume, and has nothing to do with displacement or weight. To complicate matters, some enthusiast websites (such as some of the dive websites) confuse the two measures as well. Wherever a source uses grt, gt, nrt, or nt, the infobox field to be used is tonnage, not displacement. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French gun-vessel Torride (1795)[edit]

Hi Manxruler, I agree with you that it was a British boarding party that captured Torride. I normally would have used that identification, but the French author whose account I was loosely translating used "English", so I stuck with that, albeit without quotation marks. So, under the circumstances, which is more appropriate? I have no dog in this fight. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad. Glad to see another of your ship articles, I really do enjoy them (I'm about to add this one to the list of ships captured in the 18th century). I suspected that it was a case of translation. Now, I know that in many non-English languages (German, Norwegian [when I lecture on aspects of the Second World War, the audience always refer to "the English" when asking questions/making comments], and evidently French), it is quite common to call the British "English". Common, yet incorrect. Seeing as this capture is an event which took place post-1707, the only correct term is British. Beyond that date England and the English carried out no wars, the United Kingdom and the British did. If we were to write about English naval personnel in 1798, we might just as well do so when writing about incidents in 1940. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler, Roger that. Also, I am glad you enjoy the ship articles. Given that at this point I am specializing in minor vessels, I have always wondered if anybody ever read them, except to catch my frequent typos. Minor though the vessels were, they often had a colourful incident or more in their histories. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. I find that it's important to write about the smaller vessels too, not to solely focus on the largest and best-known ships. That's one of the things I like about Wikipedia, the opportunity to provide those lesser known aspects of the world to the reader. Have you considered nominating your work at WP:DYK? I think your articles deserve a wider audience, and I think we need more ships over there. Manxruler (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do DYKs, but then Wikipedia changed the rules. I understand the legitimacy of requiring reciprocity, that is, if you submit DYKs you need to review DYKs, but my comparative advantage is in (and preference for) writing articles, not reviewing, so I withdrew from that part of Wikipedia. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. You're not alone in that respect. I know of several other editors who ceased nominating their work after that reform. Oh, well, not much to do about that. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Scandinavia and German invasion of Denmark (1940)[edit]

Hey, I noticed you undid some of my recent additions regarding these two pages. First, I don't think the inter-wiki links were counter-productive. Or, if you're going to undo my links, you could at least remove the false link so that it doesn't show that ugly red color. Secondly, I've noticed you keep removing my Invasion of Scandinavia link, and calling the page a "nonsense article". I would like to disagree with both of those actions. While my article needs revision (as being discussed at its talk page, and here, I would have to disagree with the "nonsense" title you (among others) have given it. I just noticed that the invasions of Nordic regions (which I inproperly labeled Scandinavia, because I read several articles claiming Iceland, among other disputed places I listed, were part of Scandinavia) were left hopelessly broad campaign-wise, and thrown into European theater, or sometimes just World War II. I was just trying to help clarify to some people who may not know as much about history the general situation at the time, much like having other campaigns, such as the Maginot Line, as part of the German invasion of France, or etcetera. Instead of just removing it and calling it "nonsense", you could just put a dubious marker on there. Thanks, Cnd474747 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:re:[edit]

For future reference, you can just respond on here; I will be checking. 1. I understand the whole thing with redlinks now, I thought they just showed on that page that the article didn't exist. I was just trying to help shed some light on their subjects (though, the majority of people will be using search engines that offer to translate it for them; if not, all it takes is a free trip to Google translate). 2. I have the entire article not only backed by cites, but most of it is based off of Wiki articles, and then double-checked using other articles. And again, I can change the "common name" thing that everyone seems so stuck on. 3. There is already an article on Nordic countries during World War II, but that was not my intended purpose. My goal was to cover the invasion of those areas. 4. It says, in the Template:Dubious page, that it's there to warn readers that something might be wrong (hence the point of them). Even if it's so clearly wrong, you should then put a Template:Disputed-inline tag.

At this point, I'm just going to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnd474747 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's good that you understand about redlinks now, for future reference please check thing first.

2. Well, you have some sources, but most of them are poor ones, and that doesn't help with the whole issue about writing an article about a non-existent concept. For using Wiki articles as sources, see WP:CIRCULAR.

3. The invasions are already covered, in separate articles.

4. The burden of proof is on the person adding the link, you have to justify why it belongs in the places you put the links.

You can't personally delete articles, even if you originally wrote them. Manxruler (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Manxruler. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: For some reason my email account had died. I've fixed it now, please resend the email. Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rolf Hauge (officer)[edit]

On 18 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rolf Hauge (officer), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that having defended a heavy water factory in the 1940 Norwegian Campaign, Captain Rolf Hauge led No. 5 Norwegian Troop of the No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando in the 1944 assault landings at Walcheren? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rolf Hauge (officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altenhus Fortress[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Altenhus Fortress at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Altenhus Fortress[edit]

On 25 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Altenhus Fortress, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Christian IV of Denmark-Norway (pictured) had Altenhus Fortress built in the far north of Norway, to defend his territorial claims there and secure the salmon fisheries of the Alta River? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Altenhus Fortress. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Can you expand the stub I created on Årøya?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc. I guess I could. Don't think I've ever actually done an island article before, though. It's a neat little stub right now (well done by you), so it should do fine until I find time. I'll be pretty busy to next couple of weeks or so, travels and such, but I'll see what I'll be able to do at some later point. Manxruler (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. You have new messages at Wesley Mouse's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wes Mᴥuse 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk[edit]

As a lot of files regarding aircrafts of all types are loaded every day, on Commons WikiProject Aviation, it ‘ld be possible, that on of them will be loaded in the next future. I think it’ld be of some help for the readers of the articles give a glance at the aircrafts built by Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk.Chesipiero (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keesings access[edit]

Hey Manxruler, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadads. I think I've fixed things now. Is everything in order? Manxruler (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I will get you some more information soon. Sadads (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goody. Manxruler (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Birger Fredrik Motzfeldt[edit]

On 29 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Birger Fredrik Motzfeldt, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Birger Fredrik Motzfeldt headed the Royal Norwegian Air Force from 1955 to 1960? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Birger Fredrik Motzfeldt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Orlady (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (for Soviet submarines)[edit]

Thanks, and you're right. After all Soviet subs didn't scored many victories (i had seen some other pages of subs (British/Germans) that excluded military warships from the lists, but here with Soviets it's not the case and could be simply added: As soon as i've some time i will create pages for some other boats (the most important ones). I've used uboats.net as main reference for ship sunk, but i've found actually that other russians sources has more precises data (town.ural.net), sometimes detracting, sometimes adding victories. For now i think could be added the ones in Uboat.net lists (being in english it's easier). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen submarine articles that excluded warships, and if there are any, they most likely shouldn't do that. I don't known about the sources you mention (except uboat.net, which is okay), but you should probably ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.

Also, you should read up about how to cite sources (in your case, since you use web sites, look here: Template:Cite web), right now you are using bare urls, which isn't how it's supposed to be done. Best of luck. Manxruler (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, i'm having some real big issues to understand the whole cite sources page (and my level of understanding of some english terms doesn't help). I'm trying to undestand looking at similar pages, but for what i understood most of this work consists in giving additional detail: for example on another sub. page it's wrote "<ref name=uboat/>" and on page it's just added not just the link but also some further detail (name of one of the authors of uboat.net): this means not "using bare urls"? If it's that, i will try to correct it in the others (addittionally to correct the amounts of GRT sunk, now rising if in the tables are added the military ships) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what not using bare urls means, giving more data, like the author of the text and such. In addition to giving proper credit, that helps avoid WP:Link rot, which is when things move from a url to another or disappear and we lose the source. Please also make sure to sign your messages on talk pages using these signs: ~~~~, you find them under the Wiki markup located below the text box. Manxruler (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "<ref name=uboat/>" ref you mention is a shortcut for not repeatedly writing the same citation over and over again. It's a bit more advanced, start by using the templates, then the rest will follow. Manxruler (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks again, i will work on it. On the problem of the sources for what i can say (i've been an user on some specialized sites as axishistoryforum and the russian tsushima.ru) it appears according many of them that the lists from u-boats.net came from western authors of '90s and most of them are plenty full of mistakes. On tsushima.net i've managed to personally speak with a pair of authors (including Miroslav Morozov, that is open for lots of Q&A): he made revised lists of victories, and has been applied to some updated russian sites (as town.ural.ru). My question it's if we can use town.ural.ru as main source-site for data, even if it's all in russian language. I've already put it as sources for the commanders, because none other site do it. It's however interesting to note that these new russian sources actually DOWNSIZE most of the soviet victories, while Miroslav Morozov on the forum usually make simple lists, town.ural.ru make some explains and debate some of the victories (i can say they match 80% with Morosov lists.... personally i agree on 90% with the Morozov's works: for some events he's even too much conservative and restrictive in giving responsability to a submarine). Do you think i'm allowed to re-make the lists (or at least the most significant ones) linking as source this russian site? (http://www.town.ural.ru/ship/start/start.php3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forums are generally not considered good sources. I don't read Russian, and I know nothing about town.ural.ru. I would strongly recommend you asking at over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. The folks there will probably be better at answering your source questions. I'll say this, though: Firstly, the fact that the source is in Russian, is not in itself a problem, it depends on the quality of the source, not the language. Secondly, the fact that you have spoken with some of the authors matters not. Only the actual sources matter, what the websites are based on, and who are authoring the website. But as I said, ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Manxruler (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

DYK for Hans Aasnæs[edit]

On 14 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hans Aasnæs, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hans Aasnæs was the 1947 individual World Champion in the 100 metre running deer double shot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Aasnæs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SS Bosnia[edit]

Thanks for fixing up the Bosnia index page and all that. I knew that I should have involved you earlier as our resident merchant ship guy, but time just got away from me today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, Sturmvogel 66. It gave me plenty of ships to add to the various shipwreck lists. Keep up the stellar work, I do enjoy reading about warships of various nations. I think your work on the French, Russian and Japanese navies and many more is of especially high value to the project. I do enjoy reading about things which I have limited knowledge of beforehand. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I'll fill out a basic description, etc. in a few days with what sources I have available. I don't know what's on Miramar, but if there's anything there that I haven't covered already, I'd be obliged if you could fill it in whenever you get time, especially any sale/ownership/routing info. No reason why we couldn't get a DYK out of this if we move quickly as I'm know we can certainly bring the ship's article up to C class. BTW, the maps on uboat.net and wrecksite.eu put her roughly midway between Crete and Cyrenaica rather than close to Derna as Miramar's gave. I wonder which is more correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly add whatever is on Miramar later today. DYK sounds good. Generally I trust Miramar more than uboat and wrecksite (the latter I don't trust at all), but I'll try and see if there are any other sources to back up one location or the other. Manxruler (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the Miramar stuff. Will have a look around my library to see if I have any more info there. Manxruler (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll check it out and then probably go ahead with the DYK nomination for this article as well as the French cruiser that she pulled off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Should make for a nice hook. Manxruler (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does miramar give the coordinates of the sinking? I'm going to add those from uboat.net and you can update them with miramar's if it has any. I'm going to switch some of the cites around as uboat.net really has nothing on the ship's stats other than tonnage so all of that needs to be cited to wrecksite and miramar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in this case Miramar does not give any coordinates, only the distance and direction of the sinking from Derna. Manxruler (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I just ran the coordinates and they roughly agree with miramar's location, so I think that we're golden.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a look at that too. Looks good. Manxruler (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really good nomination. I'm not entirely sure I should receive credit for the Amiral Charner article, though. Manxruler (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation on Narvik front[edit]

Thank you very much for your thorough and clear explanation of the actual situation around Narvik at the time Hull was fighting there. I had not been fully aware of the facts. I have changed the incorrect wording in the FA nomination. I hope you're well and having a great Sunday. Have an enjoyable and productive week. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. No problem at all. I know the whole situation in Norway in April-June 1940, with the numerous fronts created by the German sea-borne invasion (off the top of my head I can count four, maybe five, geographically separated fronts where British troops fought, plus several more where no Allied troops arrived to support the Norwegian forces against the German invasion), is complex. Manxruler (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope you have a nice evening too, as well as a good week. Manxruler (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

début[edit]

You claim this to be the "primary" way of spelling it in English. Can you substantiate that claim please, with verifiable sources showing that its usage is in preference to debut? After all, Google suggests that twice as many sources use the un-accented version. And this is English-language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to my paper dictionary (which I have on my desk when editing) it's the primary spelling. According to Wiktionary and this web source it's a spelling, and that's all that's needed. It's not wrong, it's a legitimate British English spelling. Hence, it's completely fine on Wikipedia, and thus against guidelines to change like you would like to. Wikipedia has no preferred version of English, we're only required to be consistent, which I am. Manxruler (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's nonsense, we have WP:ENGVAR which means we tend to go with variations of English for articles, whichever seems most appropriate. To add accents to anglicised words is a complete waste of time. As you already know, debut is used far more extensively than your dictionary suggests. But never mind, it means nothing to me, but I'm certain you'll encounter other people doing just as I have done, improving the weak articles that appear on the main page and correcting them for modern English. No further debate required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considerate advice. Cool double spacing you've got going yourself. You have a nice day too. Manxruler (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kristian Krefting[edit]

On 28 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kristian Krefting, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Olympic footballer Kristian Krefting served as a liaison officer with British forces fighting in the 1940 Norwegian Campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristian Krefting. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

HJ Mitchell 00:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pingpongo and Alex Asensi[edit]

Hallo! I can see you put red question marks in two articles related to Pingpongo. We do not know why "sources look unreliable" for you and why you have "serious doubts about pretty much every source used here" since every source is reliable. This is a quite new sport but as existent as beer pong or other alternative sports that has articles. We appreciate if you can give us more information about your doubts to be able to remove those marks. Tusen takk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Ridao (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. thanks for great answer. Nice to see why and not just a red mark. I already removed link to fm la tribu (place where tournaments are made in argentina, thats why was the link to their entire page so one that wants to know more about place can do it) and i fixed link to world alternative games, directly to its catalogue (where pingpongo is mentioned) that was printed and online in their website (thats why was the link to that page). - antipodescafé page about pingpongo looks "blog-y" but thats aesthetic comment, the content is correct and is just about this sport in Norway with also world ranking, rules and more information. How should look a website to be reliable? - Fotballfesten: In this place with thousands of visitors was a week of pingpongo and a tournament. Link is there to refer the image of the table, in case someone wants to know more about that context. if it has to say pingpongo the link, well, thats not possible as they didn't updated too much their page as you can see (maybe this organisation is less reliable by their website, but they put thousands of people in same place basically to watch tv… well…) But if anyone is interested to know more, with link can contact that people, ¿no?. If this thinking is wrong I understand and is fine to remove link, you can do it too :-). . Another case like this is for example the link to O Globo (that you don't mention) which is a super big newspaper in Brazil. So there is no link online because was printed. So I guess is ok to put the source, so if anyone wants to know more can try to find the printed version. no? - pingpongo.com.ar is the page of the creators of this sport and where all information about tournaments is. it is a blog as we can see, but in south america many organisations like this size ones has blogs or pages made with wordpress platform (which btw is a great one). So what to do in those cases? I think is quite similar to antipodes café case and I think that research should transcend aerial views.

In case of Alex references are just about the tournaments he played. thats why they are to antipodes café page (because antipodes café is the one in charge of pingpongo in norway) or to pingpongo.com.ar (where is all information about all official tournaments played in the world) I think is fare to show who is the best player of this sport. If the sport is small doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't have sense. All sports were small in their beginnings.

if you want to know more about this sport, here you can see a video in english by Argentinian Independent i already post now in external links (maybe is wrong there?) http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-style/sport/video-ping-pong-with-obstacles/

Ill read more about proper citation styles because i am super new . nice if you correct too, i like that from wikipedia.

all the best, we felipe (i wrote we by mistake in previous message) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Ridao (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The jekt Anna Karoline[edit]

I have translated the article about the jekt Anna Karoline into English, it is currently on my userpage. If you have time to check my English translation I would appreciate that as I am sure it could be improved. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look, and yes there is room for improvement. Don't know when I'll have the time, though. Busy days ahead of me in the near future. Manxruler (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it there over the weekend, so if you could use some minutes I would appreciate that. As I am not that good in English I try to restrict myself to translate from English to Norwegian, but on some occasions there seems to be no other way than to try. Ulflarsen (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I'll try. Why would you like the edits done before you you move it to the mainspace? Manxruler (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If possible I would like to present something that would not look too bad, but that may not be too important. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can see that. Still, I don't think it would have mattered if we had carried out the work after the articles launch. Anyway, I've done a first sweep of the article. Have a look. Manxruler (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix most of the points you made and have created the article about Anna Karoline, thanks a lot for your help so far! Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Bosnia (1898)[edit]

On 19 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS Bosnia (1898), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Italian cargo liner SS Bosnia pulled off the French armored cruiser Amiral Charner on 3 March 1915 after the warship had run aground under enemy fire off Dedeagatch, Bulgaria? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herdla Airport[edit]

Thanks for the copyedit. I'm not particularly eloquent in military terminology, so I appreciate your improvements. What I was wondering about was the one sentence you marked as dubious. Your are surely more knowledgeable than me in this issue. Could you elaborate on why you believe this to be incorrect? I'll quote the source: "I 1943 hadde frykten for ubåter og MTB'er vært større enn for flyangrep, og knvoiene lå derfor i dekning nattestid. Nå var situasjonen anderledes. Skipene måtte ofte søke tilflukt i trange fjordarmer i dagslys, på steder der det var vanskelig å gjennomføre flyangrep." Then it continues with discussing some details in Masfjorden. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsenikk. The thing is, the article seems to indicate that the convoys in question were Allied convoys threatened by the Germans, when in fact what your source is saying is that the convoys were German ones, threatened by the Allies. It would be very dubious if the source stated that Allied Arctic convoys were hiding in fjords from German attack. But that's not what you've cited above indicates. I'm glad to see the article up and running, by the way. Thumbs up. Manxruler (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anna Karoline[edit]

On 12 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Karoline, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the museum Nordland fylkesmuseum bought the Nordlandsjekt Anna Karoline (pictured) after their first choice, Brødrene, was shipwrecked? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Karoline. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Nystedt[edit]

Knut Nystedt, a great Norwegian, died. Can you read the place of death from the obituary [14] ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gerda, no luck on finding that information. Apparently he died in a nursing home of some sort somewhere, but the article doesn't specify. I've googled him just now, and all the articles on his passing pretty much all contain the same information about his his life and awards, without specifying a place of death. I'll keep an eye out in case that detail should be revealed in the future. Manxruler (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thorleiv Røhn[edit]

On 22 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thorleiv Røhn, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thorleiv Røhn (pictured), a gold medal–winning Norwegian gymnast at the 1906 Intercalated Games, was convicted of treason after the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thorleiv Røhn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist talk page re Spanish Civil War[edit]

Thank you for digging up that photo. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: No problem, Buckshot06. I had previously used that photo on other articles, and somehow missed adding it the Grieg's article until now. Grieg's article is a bit messy, though, some work should be put into it. Maybe I'll find the time someday. Manxruler (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German weather ship Externsteine[edit]

Does Miramar have any further details on the fate of German weather ship Externsteine after she was sold out of service by the USCG?. Did she serve as a merchant vessel post-1950? Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Yes, Miramar has more info. She did not see merchant service, being scrapped in 1951. Info added to the article. Manxruler (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skjeggestad Bridge[edit]

FYI...   is obsolete HTML. An HTML Nazi would also scream   was also the wrong thing to use in that spot. {{clear}} would have been the proper thing to add. Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Uhmm... Sure. However, I haven't the faintest clue why you are telling me this, seeing as my only edit on that page didn't add any of that stuff. I think you've mistaken me for another of the editors on that page. Look a bit closer before going all HTML-lecture on folks next time, would you? Manxruler (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August Wriedt[edit]

I've worked on the sandbox article a bit more, but have come across a blacklist problem. Managed a temporary work-around and have asked for the page to be whitelisted. Feel free to add Miramar info. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Will do. In a little while. Probably later today. Manxruler (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm going to have a kip now. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Miramar stuff added. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Miramar give details of her disposal? Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Oh, yes. Added now. Manxruler (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 1945[edit]

Hi! Do you perhaps have access to Krigens dagbok, or are you in any other way able to tell what would be the precursor of the Nazis taking "train hostages" in late February 1945? And lots of hostages, all over the country? Some grand train sabotage? "Betongblanding" happened in March... Geschichte (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: Hi. I do own that book. However, right now it is at my office, so I won't be able to check until sometime tomorrow. As soon as I get to the book, I'll check.

In the meantime, according to Holdningskamp og motstandsvilje: NTH under krigen 1940-1945 (page 111-112) the German responded to an upsurge in railway sabotage during the winter of 1944-45 by taking a number of toggisler, whom they placed in a railway wagon right behind the locomotive. Apparently, this was to create a situation were the hostages would be in danger in case of sabotage.

Further, the author of Okkupasjonstida 1940-1945 i Orkanger-Orkdal-Orkland i Sør-Trøndelag writes that he was taken as a toggissel "due to bridges being blown up" and that he and other prisoners were put in a wagon behind the locomotive. The German motive was apparently to protect their train going to Oslo.

The same thing also occurred on the Nordland Line, according to Fra Brønnøys fortid (page 123).

I read in Norsk fangeleksikon. Grinifangene that a large number (at least 124) of people were taken as toggissel. It would seem that a lot of the hostages were connected to Trondheim.

I suspect the reason for the German hostage taking was that they were concerned about protecting their troop trains bringing soldiers down from Northern Norway/Northern Finland to be shipped to the continent, a process that began in late 1944. It seems that there was an upsurge in sabotage even before "Betongblanding". Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: Hi again. Just remembered to check Krigens dagbok. The book does not mention large scale rail-related hostage taking. However, it does mention an upsurge in railway sabotage in early 1945. I think it makes sense that the "train hostage" situation occurred after the most deadly railway sabotage in Norway during the war; the Jørstadelva Bridge sabotage on 13 January 1945. We do have a quite bad article on that incident located at Operation Woodlark. The title of the appears to be wrong, too, as Operation Woodlark was about more than just blowing up Jørstadelva Bridge. Anyway, to me it looks like the spike in railway sabotage in early 1945, especially the blowing up of Jørstadelva Bridge, caused the Germans to take Norwegian train hostages. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geschichte (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gunboats[edit]

Seekrieg, May 1940 mentions gunboats by the names of Hefring, Tyr and Frejr being scuttled on 14 May 1940 during the invasion of the Netherlands. Strikes me that these names are not Dutch. Any ideas? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Those are all definitely the names of Norse gods. Now, I know the Germans liked to use Norse god names for their ships back in the day (Freya, Odin, Ägir, etc.), so the Dutch might also have used such names.

I looked up the ships on Miramar and elsewhere, and sure enough, the Royal Dutch Navy has used those names.

There has been two HNLMS Hefring (a 1880 gunboat and a 1954 patrol boat). Interestingly, the Dutch are the only ones who have used the name of one of the Nine Daughters of Ægir when naming a ship. So HNLMS Hefring (1880) for that scuttled vessel.

As for Tyr, the job was more difficult, as it is very popular to name ships after a god of war. Miramar gave me no Dutch results for Tyr. Google did however provide info on a Tyr (1878-1940). So that seems good too. Evidently no need for a dab, though, so HNLMS Tyr should do.

Lastly, in the case of Frejr, I had no Miramar hits. Google didn't help either. However, once I took into consideration that as non-Dutch people the Germans might misspell Dutch names, I found what we're looking for. The correct name for the final ship in question is Freyr. In addition to the ship in question, HNLMS Freyr (1877), we've also got a HNLMS Freyr (1954), so in that case a dab is needed.

So, the Dutch like using Norse god names for their warships. I didn't know that. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. Will add the info to the list.

Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manxruler (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Manxruler. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've got some issues with my email provider, will fix and get to you. Manxruler (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its maiden voyage.[edit]

In case the question in your edit summary wasn't entirely rhetorical, I say "it" because, despite maritime tradition, boats are objectively objects. They're built from metal, wood and plastic, not hormones, chromosomes and eggs. Same as a house, car or oven.

On a special interest ship website, by sailors and for sailors, I'd absolutely endorse pretending it's a woman. Since the majority of Wikipedia readers are landlubbers, it makes more sense to speak their language here. But yes, per WP:SHE4SHIPS, consistency is good. Thanks.

Beyond these two cents, I won't argue it further and don't expect your mind to change. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: Hi there.

No, that wasn't an entirely rhetorical question. It was a fair question as to why you chose to ignore the established style of the article. We're expected to respect the established style of ship articles when it comes to pronouns (as well as some other things). I use "it" when that is the established style of the ship articles I edit, and "she" when that's the established style. I personally prefer "she/her", but that's besides the point. It's not about changing minds or not. The worst situation for a ship article, pronoun-wise, is to have a mix of "it" and "she". Consistency is vital. Manxruler (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't choose to ignore it so much as I didn't think about it. That something had a maiden voyage was the important thing at the time. After you brought it up, it made perfect sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All's well, then. Just remember consistency next time around. That goes for dates too, by the way. Manxruler (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate I edit ship articles, next time around could be a while, but I'll try to remember. I'm usually pretty good about dates in articles, but I refuse to have a backward signature. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. Signatures are often personal designs, nothing wrong with that. Manxruler (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dab needed[edit]

At List of shipwrecks in September 1942, Tamon Maru No. 6 needs dabbing. There was an 1883 ship of that name, but not the ship in question. GRT is way too low. Can you help? Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I don't have Miramar access right now, but next week I will have such access and be able to check that. In the meantime, The Ships List says 1918. Should be correct. Manxruler (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, The Ships List is a RS, so am happy with that. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. I'll double-check with Miramar next week, just to be safe. Manxruler (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Norwegian electric ferry[edit]

I found this and though't you might be interested. Looks like an easy DYK if you want to write an article. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Thanks for the tip. There are tons of Norwegian refs for this vessel, too. I might have a go in a little while, but right now it's extremely busy at work, with conferences and exams and more. Don't really have time to sit down and do a proper job the next few weeks. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Pelican (L86)[edit]

Hello,
You flagged the "Service history" section on this page for additional citations; were there particular points you felt that needed verifying? The broad outline of what is there is on Geoffrey Mason's navalhistory site, which is cited at the end of the section: I thought that would cover it, but I could have another go at it if you think anything needs firming up. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: Hi. If you'd like, I could cn tag the areas which are not referenced at the moment. Manxruler (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whatever makes life easier for you will be fine. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: Well, I rather thought it would make things easier for you, not me, but yeah sure. I'll get to it tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! Apologies, we seem to have been at cross purposes over this. Anyway, I've added the cites for the passages labelled. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All's good then. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: casualty limit of 30[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you added a why? tag in the article List of maritime disasters in World War II. This article was recently split off from the original page, List of maritime disasters, due to excessive article length. The original discussions regarding the lower limit was included in the page Talk:List of maritime disasters in the 20th century which was split off from the original article as well. I hope this helps clarify the reasoning for the lower limit. Shinerunner (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinerunner: Good thing it's been discussed in advance. Then all is in order in that regards. I couldn't figure out why 30 was the casualty limit for disasters. Taking that into account, you will still be flooded with entries if you're going to add all the ships sunk with 30 or more fatalities during the Second World War. A limit of 100 seems more reasonable to me. Manxruler (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message from BobtheSnowDog[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi @BobtheSnowDog: My email account is down at the moment, and I haven't fixed it yet. So, can't read any email you may have sent. Leave messages on-wiki if you want to say something to me, please. Manxruler (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hei. I wonder if you have any suggestion how to get more reliable informations about the Meløyvær Fortress since not even Den store norske leksikon has nada. It was an insanely top secret instalation and it is only slow that people realised it is now open. Basicaly all the info I have s from the major who use to run that place. Shall I force him to write a book;)) [[User:BobtheSnowDog|BobtheSnowDog] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I could have a look around sometime soon. Shouldn't be impossible. As using original research (like talking to that major) isn't allowed on Wikipedia, something else will have to be found, or the information removed. If that major had written a book, and had it published by an established publisher (not like in paying some company to print the book), then that could have been used. Well, something to cite will have to be found, or information will have to be removed. Manxruler (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Thorén[edit]

I won't edit-war about it (I hope the article will be deleted, anyway), but even though "every one of those tags were correct", see WP:OVERTAG: "It is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles. Adding more tags usually results in all of them being ignored." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: I wouldn't oppose a deletion of the article in question. As to that essay, I disagree with it. Manxruler (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

The Traditionalist (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MS Sinfra[edit]

GRT, surely? Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Hi. Yeah, on second thought, must be GRT. Manxruler (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's Register entries for Fernglen / Sinfra and Sandhamn. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. Not too sure how much work I'll put into this article right away. Even though it shouldn't be too hard to find even more info in books and such, it's depending on having the time to sit down and focus on the article for a good while. Maybe it could be developed over time? And perhaps you would like to pitch in? Manxruler (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Found three, maybe four, books and a web reference. Will see if some can be added tomorrow or in the weekend. Manxruler (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at what The Times has to say. LR mentions a grounding c.1933. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It would be great if we could find a date for date grounding, which is pretty central in the history of the ship. That was why she was sold in 1934, being considered a wreck. The grounding is mentioned in one of the books, but without a date. Manxruler (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does 13 August 1933 sound? You only had to look at the relevant list of shipwrecks, she was already listed. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Well done. I'll follow up. Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Huygens seems to have had a career worthy of an article. I'll get one up in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. I'll keep on tinkering on Sinfra. Will also check Miramar re Christiaan Huygens when you've got the article up and running. Manxruler (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: There seems to only have been one Christiaan Huygens, so apparently no need for a dab. Manxruler (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: What do you think about the way I cited the Williams book at Sinfra? Got any pointers on how to do it better? It's got no page numbers, which I find extremely frustrating. The History Press seems like an okay publisher, though. Manxruler (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I take it that it's a section within a chapter being cited. An alternative is to use {{sfn}} for citing books, in which case you'd use |locn=. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, then. Will be uploading photos next. Manxruler (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Photos in place. Unless my counting is off, I think the article has been expanded enough for DYK. What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you have, without doing a specific count. Go for it!. BTW, I've made a start on Christiaan Huygens but was in a lot of pain yesterday, which affected my ability to sit and edit. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go do a nom, then. Regarding Christiaan Huygens, I'll see what Miramar has on her. Hope you're doing better today. Manxruler (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: How do you like the nom? Got any suggestions for alts? Manxruler (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a tweak for clarity. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went a bit to-and-fro on that one. Thanks for tweaking. Manxruler (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another redlink turned blue

. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Excellent stuff. Miramar has a couple of small details not already in the article, so I'll be adding those soon. A few dates and such. One question I have regarding Christiaan Huygens, is if there's any point in referring to the ship being under Dutch flag during the war? I mean, she was registered in Dutch colonies, which had no flag of their own at the time in question. I'm also a bit sceptical to referring to "Batavia, Netherlands" and "Willemstad, Netherlands" in the info box. Shouldn't it be "Batavia, Netherlands East Indies" and "Willemstad, Curaçao and Dependencies"? You could use a note or explain in the main text how the German occupation of the Netherlands forced a change in port of registry. Manxruler (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a tricky one. LR states that the flag country was the Netherlands, not Netherlands East Indies or Netherlands Antilles. A similar situation arises with other countries, such as Australian ships being registered at Melbourne under the British Flag. That was one way I came up with to cover the situation, but it may not be the only way of dealing with it. Am always willing to consider alternative solutions. This is possibly something worthy of discussion at WP level. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! If the display of |Ship registry= was changed from "Port of registry:" to "Port of registry and flag:", the problem would be solved! Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It's certainly tricky with countries that has/has had colonies. Manxruler (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up?[edit]

Why do I have an image in my head of you following up behind me with a dustpan and broom in hand as I rampage through WP:Ships? Nonetheless, I appreciate your WikiGnome work as I tend not to pay much attention to cats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I do find the ship articles you are working on interesting, yes. Especially that they are so varied. And I enjoy working on cats, I find it fulfilling work. Thanks for the appreciation. Manxruler (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Hi. Could you please chime in here and see if you can offer some help. I'm rather worried that we are about to loose a new, prolific creator of serious articles. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for MS Sinfra[edit]

On 16 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MS Sinfra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the cargo ship Sinfra was bombed by Allied aircraft in 1943, the German guards machine-gunned the thousands of Italian prisoners on board when they tried to escape the sinking vessel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MS Sinfra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedersen - Ametican people of Norwegian dascent[edit]

Hi - you removed this as a miscat, is there something subtle in the category definition I don't get? Pedersen was born in Norway to Norwegian parents and became a US citizen, seeming to fit both elements. Dankarl (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Never mind I missed the subcat. Dankarl (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dankarl: Hi. Don't know which Pedersen you're referring to, there are many people of that surname, but yes, you missed that subcat. I'm glad you found it. Being "of descent", means you parents/ancestors had a different nationality/national background than you do. Missing that distinction a very, very common mistake to make. Manxruler (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the main reason many articles on Norwegian emigrants to the United States have been miscategorized as "American people of Norwegian descent" (which they're clearly not) is because the old category "Norwegian Americans" was deleted (quite correctly, it was a pointless category) back in 2010. The problem began when someone decided to replace all the "Norwegian Americans" categories with "American people of Norwegian descent" categories, even though the two things are not at all the same. "Norwegian American" is something of a catch-all term for both Norwegian emigrants to the US and American people of Norwegian ancestry. That created a messy situation which I recently rectified. Manxruler (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enquire[edit]

Evening, sorry about that, I was trying to copy what you did, IE the correct way to label a copyright issues. I have never had to do such a thing before and never know the correct format or codes to use. So its was a simple copy and past and replacing your details the copy right issues I needed to highlight. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazyseiko: Okay. Just remember to use your own user name next time. Here's the copy-vio template: Template:Copyvio. It's pretty straight forward. Manxruler (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on an Article in Which You've Participated[edit]

A RfC on an article in which you've commend on has been opened here. This is a courtesy notification you may ignore if it is of no interest. LavaBaron (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted[edit]

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Margit[edit]

Hi, I have tried to translate the article about Margit Johnsen aka Malta-Margit, I would be grateful if you could have a look at it before I move it to mainspace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ulflarsen/Draft01#D.C3.B8dskonvoiene_til_Malta_1942

I will try to have her on DYK. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulflarsen: Will see if I have time. Looks okay at first glance. You need a page number at ref 12 (Sunnmørsposten, 28 July 1987), though. Manxruler (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will visit the National library and look that up. Ulflarsen (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's very thorough of you. Manxruler (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then page and name of article is added, the original contributor fixed it. :-) Ulflarsen (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulflarsen: Will have a proper look this evening. Very interesting article. Manxruler (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoiking with the Winged Ones[edit]

Hello.

I saw that you removed non excisting cats from my article 'Yoiking ...'. Could you please point me to where the excisting categories are are referenced.

80m6an — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80m6an (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and see what correct categories there might be. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be much appriciated. (80m6an (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Done Manxruler (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for adding these categories. How did you find them? And is there a particalar "bank" of categories, so that one can differ between excisting and non excisting ones? Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80m6an (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I rewrote the paragraph on the works title and inspirations that you found to close to fiction. I used a less metaphorical/,etonymic prose to a more referencial one. Is that what you wanted to focus on?

80m6an (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. No. There is no category bank. If you add what you think is a category, and it turns out red, then it's not an existing category. What I did was to go to Category:Sami culture, which I know of, then continuing to Category:Sami music, then to Category:Sami music albums. Seeing as Somby is Norwegian, Category:Albums by Norwegian artists was natural to add. Manxruler (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. I can't see that you've done anything major to the section in question. It is still a work of fiction portrayed as a real thing.

3. As stated in the recently created deletion discussion, you've got some very serious sourcing issues in relation to this article. Manxruler (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on MS Sinfra[edit]

I guess according to your own actions, details that would provide actual contexts of information, are not worthy of inclusion. I included that change on the MS Sinfra article because I had to actually lookup the mention of Piraeus as a reminder of where it was and wanted to make its mention more meaningful to those who are not readily familiar. And I am quite knowledgeable about ancient history. However, I am very surprised that as a PhD student that you reject detailed information that would actually provide meaning to the actions that occurred (such as the fact that is not just a port but the port city for Athens). But, ironically you are a militarist so maybe that is the real and fundamental reason for your removal of my edit - because you must have the final word of whatever information is to be available to others. Obviously, either way, it is clearly about control and your ability to possess it. I have always thought of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise, however, I am occasionally reminded, especially on Wikipedia, that there are still a number of bullies in the world that humans occupy. I will not revert the change you have made and will defer to the bullydom that you practice. So you have won. Hopefully, it will make you feel more empowered. But as a militarist, you are certainly in pursuit of the correct profession. I apologize if I seem angry, but I am. I want to thank you for discouraging me from editing on Wikipedia. Have a wonderful day... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenmitchell: I disagree with you about the level of detail required in the description of a Greek port city mentioned and linked in an article, and you resort to anger and name-calling? I disagree with you, and thus I am a militarist and a bully?

Do you truly feel those are fair labels to affix to a fellow editor, just because said editor does not agree with you with regards to the level of detail used when describing a city that plays a minor role in an article? Manxruler (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not name calling, I am merely affixing a label to your behavior. Yes, I think it is the practice of a bully to eradicate someone’s contributions to a collaborative effort, especially benign contributions. You did not “disagree with” me as you maintain, you erased me and the specific information that I added to the conversation. You did not contact me or remark on my page that you “thought” it should be removed – as I would have done in the same circumstance – you simply erased my personal efforts to make a contribution. I am not sure what world that you live in, but in my world, that is being a bully. I believe that silencing someone because you don’t think that they should speak (in this case make their own contribution), especially without consulting them first, constitutes being a bully.

As far you being a militarist, that is what you study and the area of interest that you pursue. You do not call your pursuits diplomacy or diplomatic studies and probably that is not what you study, which in my comprehension would be the counterpoint to pursuing military solutions to international disagreements and hostile circumstances. Those who write technocratic history about military developments and study military solutions, I generally think of as militarists, regardless of their advocacies. I also find militarism to be a bully behavior regardless of its warranting or rationalization. That is why I used the appellations that I did. I do not mean to hurt or offend you by having countered you with a reply, but squashing my opinion I find to be worthy of being considered a bully behavior. Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you, sir, are a passive-aggressive bully resorting to name calling over an editing dispute. It happens a million times a day here and your voice is no more or no less important than mine or Manxruler's. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and wiping out people's contributions is what we do as editors; we even have a policy, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, of which you appear to be ignorant, governing how this works. You initiated step one, making a change, Manxruler responded with step two, deleting your change, and you have failed to follow step 3 which is to go to the article's talk page to argue your case. Instead you have resorted to name calling and simplistic insults and have threatened to take all of your toys home. Thus proving that you cannot function in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Begone then; you have proven yourself unfit for the rough-and-tumble of the marketplace of ideas and we have no time for any such here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle[edit]

Thanks for the edits, I know there's a system for wikifying warship names but don't know how it works. Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The various templates are listed here. I used Template:HMS and Template:SS at Cycle. Ordinary wikicode works fine too, but I sort of like templates once I know them. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, thanks for the info. Hope you like the article.Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is interesting stuff. Going to have a proper read-through soon (the first, rather quick, read was mostly for c-e reasons). Manxruler (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for MV Norsel (1945)[edit]

On 13 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MV Norsel (1945), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the sealing ship Norsel was nicknamed "the Polar Bus" due to her many voyages to the Antarctic and Arctic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MV Norsel (1945). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/St Symphorien Military Cemetery[edit]

Please see note on your DYK review. By the way, a GA review is currently underway which could change the word count of the article, or add details that would need to be verified for sourcing in the DYK review. Maybe this should be put on hold until after the GA review? Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Yes, I replied over at the review with regards to the paraphrasing. Seeing as a GA review is being carried out, I agree that this should be put on hold until that is concluded. The close paraphrasing is of course something that will have to be dealt with in the course of the GA review, if the article is to pass that. Manxruler (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sakura Hauge[edit]

On 30 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sakura Hauge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sakura Hauge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 12:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ynglingatal[edit]

The article about Ynglingatal has been much improved in the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia and it has been kind of "moved" in total to the English language Wikipedia. I have just started to clean up a bit, but if others too could help we may get this one as good as the original. Ulflarsen (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When time permits, I'll have a look. Quite messy stuff. I'll also have to look into how English-language Wikipedia treats such articles, I've never really edited any like that before. I have a sneaky suspicion that there's a difference in what Norwegian-language Wikipedia would call "an excellent article" and what would be okay here. Manxruler (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help clean up as well over the coming days. Regarding featured content I really don't view it as a goal, I would be happy just to have something better there and this article is originally written by a master student that studies the period. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I thought that was the case (master student writings). That's why I'll look into how these things are done over here when it comes to articles in the same genre as Ynglingatal. There's a risk the present article (which I've only skimmed through thus far) may be coloured by the way university texts are written, which most often isn't how our articles should be written. Manxruler (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be (that the text is colored by university language) but on the other hand she seems to be open for working with Wikipedia so I try my best to support her in that. :-) Ulflarsen (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll probably edit it sometime this evening. And check and see if there's something like a Saga Wikiproject to consult. Manxruler (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at it. Will get back to it when time permits. Have also found a couple of places/people to ask for assistance, something which will definitely be required. Manxruler (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving on to trying to find someone to help with the style of the article, I think it's a good idea to have a full-scale copy-edit of the article. Seeing as the copy-editing that needs to be done is much more extensive than I have the time or energy to carry out, I've filed a request over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Manxruler (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulflarsen: They've completed the copy-edit now. Have a look. Manxruler (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help! I feel responsible as I told the user (who is quite new on Wikipedia) that it would be nice to have it translated into English, and she thought Google Translate would be enough. I think this once again show that we can be safe from being "out of business" due to competition from Google Translate for some time to come... Best regards. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Google Translate is a nice tool for gaining an understanding of texts in languages one does not understand, for whole-scale translations, not so much. At least the article's in good shape now, language-wise. I'll probably have look at some point to check if the copy-edit led to any misunderstandings. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ynglingatal (2)[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Ynglingatal at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, 01:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you for your efforts. If it turns out to be incomprehensible, then I suppose there's really nothing more to do about it. Manxruler (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it seems to have been made clearer since my last visit, so thanks to whoever did that. It's all good so far at least; as long as there's enough context I usually manage to work out the meanings. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that, I know that several people have been working on making some clarifications. Thanks again for your efforts. Manxruler (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again; the c/e is

Done; please feel free to correct any mistakes in interpretation I may have made, particularly towards the end of the article where the text was more confusing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI. Thanks a lot. It really is appreciated. I shall have a look later today. Manxruler (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Bhagat Singh page[edit]

I ask you why you have written in the beginning that it is about Bhagat Singh Thind who was soldier in us army but actually it is about The Bhagat Singh indian revolutionary...please I request you to correct it. Vikram Jadaun (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikram Jadaun: Hi. I strongly suspect you've misunderstood a few things.

1. I have made no edit to the top of that page. The only edit I've done to the page Bhagat Singh is this, where I removed a surplus category. When you look at the history of articles, said history isn't organized in such a way that the user listed at the top is the one who has written the whole article. The user listed at the top is merely the last user to edit the article.

2. The {{about}} template at the top of the Bhagat Singh page actually says the opposite of what you claim (after all, it says: "This article is about the revolutionary"). There is nothing to correct.

Regards, Manxruler (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question[edit]

Hello again
I had a question and I wondered if you would have the answer it for me. I was doing some work on the Tjeld-class patrol boats recently, and their prototype, the Nasty. I understand Tjeld means "oystercatcher" in Norwegian, but I have been unable to find the meaning of the name Nasty. Can you enlighten me? It's been niggling me for a bit, now. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: Hi again. Yeah, that name confused me at first. Nasty isn't a Norwegian name at all, it's English. After some research in Norwegian books, I've found that the ship was properly named Nasty. The name was given to the vessel by the builders, who were aiming at the international market, so that's probably why they went for an English name. For some reason which my sources do not mention the Royal Norwegian Navy didn't rename her to something Norwegian. Very strange name indeed for a Norwegian warship. Manxruler (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this; and, my apologies for not replying sooner.

So, English, hey? Well, that would explain a lot. I had drawn a blank on G Translate, and on the Norwegian WPs, but that doesn't always mean much; with the Turkish boat, Doğan, for example, the name translates as “Born”, but the Turkish WP also has an article of that name which is about falcons, so I've assumed the word has several meanings. I did wondered if the word “Nasty” had some local meaning in Norway; like this bird, which is called a “bonxie” in Shetland; calling a boat that would make sense there, but would be opaque anywhere else.

As for Nasty (in English), it is a strange choice; I presume the designers were picking up on a particular meaning or use of the word (tho' I don't know what that might be; I was still in short trousers when the Nasty was built) maybe like the way words like “sick”, or “bad”, or “shit-hot” can have positive connotations nowadays, but would make poor choices for naming a ship.

And words don't always translate well; the name of the ironclad Affondatore, for example, has a dynamic meaning in Italian, but an unfortunate (tho' in the event somewhat apt) meaning in English. But I also wonder if the US Navy kept the name because they were taken with the meaning in English, given what they were using them for. I imagine there are comparable examples to all these with Norwegian, as well.

Anyway, thanks for your time and for taking the trouble; regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: No problem at all. We're all busy at times. Regarding this class, it was involved in a nasty political scandal in connection with the sale to Greece. The last vessel or two of that sale was delivered to the Greeks after their 1967 military coup, which caused a lot of political upheaval in Norway. Will probably add that to the relevant article in due time. Manxruler (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! very nasty! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Temte[edit]

In regards to the category I added,[15] I read through the text but didn't catch the fact that the info was about someone other than the subject. It was an honest mistake, sorry. Cmr08 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmr08: No worries. Such things happens at times. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation Leader[edit]

On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Leader, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Operation Leader was the only offensive operation undertaken by the United States Navy in Northern European waters during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Leader. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Operation Leader), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kari Løvaas[edit]

On 11 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kari Løvaas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kari Lövaas appeared in the premiere of Orff's De temporum fine comoedia at the Salzburg Festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kari Løvaas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kari Løvaas), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ship type?[edit]

Does "seilskute" translate as schuyt?. We appear not to have an article on Johanna, which sank on 9 July. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been on holiday and a bit incommunicado. "Seilskute" is a pretty generic term which means "sailing vessel/sailing craft". Having Googled the ship, I found that she's a "jakt" - which can be translated to "sailing barge", "sloop", or "yacht". Being a former cargo vessel, I'd assume she was originally more of a sailing barge. Manxruler (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, was beginning to think you'd left us! Agree that sailing barge is probably correct. Worth an article? Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll probably not leave any time soon, at least not without posting a notice about it. Real life just takes over at times. Not entirely sure about Johanna being article-worthy, but I'll have a look at what sources are available, when I find the time. Manxruler (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Leader[edit]

Hi, Would you be agreeable to nominating this article for a Military History Wikiproject A-class review? I think that it meets the critera, and would be happy to start the nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hi Nick. Sounds like a good idea. If you nominate, then I'll provide what help I can in the process. Manxruler (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, once you launch the rewritten Operation Paravane article, I've got some info to add about air-dropped SIS agents and such to that. Manxruler (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot that would be great - please feel free to make additions to the draft at User:Nick-D/Drafts12 as I work on it. I'll start the joint nomination now. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All's well, then. I have some issues with lack of spare time right now, but I'll drop in when I can. Manxruler (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - I appreciate that you're enjoying summer while I'm stuck in winter. The nomination is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Leader. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the nomination. With regards to this year's Norwegian summer, in pretty much all of the country we've been basking in occasional sunshine and temperatures between 10 and 20 degrees Celsius. I could even go out without wearing a jacket once or twice. Manxruler (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I'm in the process of adding some more info to the article. Please have a look and see if you agree that the info is relevant and properly written. On that matter, could this website be considered a reliable source? At least parts of it seems okay, with Gerald Thomas as the credited author. Manxruler (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that website is usable without information on the qualifications of its authors. Amazon.com doesn't show any works by Gerald Thomas. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hi again. I would presume it's the same guy who wrote the book Torpedo Squadron Four – A Cockpit View of World War II used in the article. Gerald W. Thomas who according to his Wikipedia article was "...President Emeritus of New Mexico State University". Manxruler (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that! That certainly makes the source usable. Thanks for adding information on the memorial, and this also means that a reduced-resolution photo of it can be uploaded here under a fair use claim. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Then I'll go ahead and add some info from the website, from the parts with reliable authors. As for that photo, I must admit I'm still not completely convinced that attaching a World War II propeller blade to a stone makes a work of art. But then again, I'm not an art expert. I'll keep looking for more info, and see if an artist or something is mentioned. Manxruler (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I think I've added what I can for the time being. I've hit the local library and found nothing more to add. Hope it suffices. Will start working on Op. Paravane tonight or tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lillemor Rachlew and her husband Cato[edit]

Hi - and thanks for your edits to Lillemor Rachlew. I put some thoughts about the relevance of her husband on the article talk page. (Hope this is "correct" procedure.) I'd be interested in your views if you feel like commenting. Lelijg (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lelijg: Hi. I'll head over and have a look. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I see your point. I've answered over there more fully.Lelijg (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asieh Amini[edit]

Hello, Manxruler,

why did you put the notice that the article on Asieh Amini needs further refs? I've used four in total. And I've tried my best to make clear where exactly which paragraph comes from by adding the source at the end. The most extensive is of course so portrait in the New Yorker, so it appears several times. The sources are reliable, I don't know which of the sources should count as unreliable.--Earlyspatz^Talk 07:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earlyspatz: Hi. At the point in time three days ago when I tagged the article for needing more refs, refs were most definitively missing at several very important points for this BLP. Amini's career section was unreferenced, as was the family section. These sections contained several claims that could not stand without strong references, which were not present at the time. The sources present in the article seem fine as far as reliability goes.

Now, since then you have added citations to the places that were unreferenced. Feel free to remove the citations needed tag. Manxruler (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking about this article, I'll head over and fix its issues with categorization. Manxruler (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is now complete, I added links to the article too. The article has some tone issues, though. Manxruler (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sœrsk-Låarsørsk[edit]

You decided to place a blatant hoax on my article without just cause, and I am going to contest this with all of my heart.

I have provided references.
This is a small chain of independent shops unique to Svalbard, there is no website as there is no need for it.
The article is informative and contains a logo
User:Manxruler (You) claims the name means nothing in Norwegian, yet this is Svalbardian colloquialism. Does Tesco or Walmart form a readable word in English? No, or does Haagen-Dazs.
You argue no one is called 'Jan Gårten'? How the hell do you know?

I have provided a useful article informative to the reader. If you have never been to Svalbard, how would you know?! Should I just place hoax templates on shops that I have never been to because 'there is no one called the owner?!'. No. I will fight this. --Glasorgon (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of just cause. It was quite elaborate, but very clearly a hoax. Manxruler (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Jarfjorden[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for helping out with the Jarfjorden article I created, and for your comment about the Geocaching reference. I must admit I'd never heard of geocaching before, so hadn't realised how unsuitable the site was as a reference, but I have now removed it. I must admit that I struggled a bit to find sufficient sources to construct a worthwhile article, but I've now extended the article a little, citing an online book and Sør-Varanger Avis, which I hope is a reliable source. Cheers, —Hebrides (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebrides: Hi, no problem at all. Geocaching is quite fun, you should try it sometime. You get to see places you otherwise might not. I had a look at the article and did a few tweaks, maybe I'll add some Norwegian sources in time. Have you been to Jarfjorden, by any chance? I haven't myself, but I travelled in that general area this summer. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aleson[edit]

I made some modifications for Aleson Shipping Lines as requested. Please check if the citations are correct so I can improve more for the said page. Thanks! Bumbl_loid 08:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

@Bumbl loid: Hi. The article has some issues with needing more reliable and third-party sources. Facebook and business registers are not reliable sources, and the company's own website is not third party. Manxruler (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: I see. However, sites on that page from Facebook are to show images of the ships under Aleson Shipping Lines which is unfortunately cannot be shared here in Wikipidia since it was contributed by our members in Filipino Ship Enthusiast Coalition months ago and I don't have the original photos from them. I work for Filipino Ship Enthusiast Coalition as one of their moderators, and we moderators have the rights of our photos from our Facebook page in the purpose of information sharing like here in Wikipidia.......mostly photos of Ships of Aleson Shipping. Rest assured those photos are reliable and authentic. Bumbl_loid 08:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bumbl loid: Photos are nice and all, but if the "http://marina.gov.ph" reference covers the ships operated by the company, then separate references for individual vessels are not necessary. Having looked at the linked website, Danica Joy is listed there, so a link to a photo on Facebook (which as previously mentioned doesn't count as a reliable source) is unnecessary. Manxruler (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: Unfortunately sir, not all information on ships are available in the site of MARINA. And that is why were here to help through Wikipidia and with the help of the photos we have on Filipino Ship Enthusiast Coalition's facebook page is there to share more information about Philippine ships. Bumbl_loid 08:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: Furthermore, MARINA don't have ships photos unlike ours in Filipino Ship Enthusiast Coalition. Bumbl_loid 08:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: In also to search more about other links, there's only a few information to take about Aleson Shipping Lines. Only a little can be found about their company from other credible websites. However, articles I gathered are factual about the said company and to Philiipine Shipping as a whole. Bumbl_loid 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bumbl loid: Well, best of luck, then. I'd just recommend that you read the links I provided above, about reliable, third-party, sources, as well as WP:LINKSPAM, which might also come into play if you insert many links to the Facebook (see WP:FACEBOOK) page you refer to. Please be careful not to add links to websites not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. The info might be correct, but on Wikipedia WP:Verifiability is what counts. In that regard, Wordpress blogs (see WP:Blogs), like mindanaoboom, are generally not considered reliable. Manxruler (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler:Dont worry sir. I'm in monitor to develop the page. So far, this is the only I could gather. But thanks for the help. Rese assured that I'll work my best for the said article. Bumbl_loid 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16[edit]

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of one Milhist article at either PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Thanks, Rupert. I do appreciate it. Which article is it I'm getting credit for helping out with the review of? Operation Paravane? Manxruler (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think it was Operation Leader as Paravane will be tallied in the next round. I tallied the reviews manually a while ago, so I can't recall with clarity off the top of my head, sorry. The process of tallying isn't always 100 percent accurate (mainly because it is me that is doing it), so apologies if this isn't accurate. Hopefully this shows that we are grateful for your contributions, regardless. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Aha, I see. Good. I didn't realize that one could get reviewer credit when responding to and fixing issues raised during the review of articles where one is one of the nominators, so this is sort of a surprise. Thanks for the award. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, it's not the norm, no. My tally was apparently more fallacious than normal (in hindsight, doing the tally while watching the football and enjoying a beer). Sorry, although I think you deserve some recognition, so if you are happy to accept, I'll leave it be. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, if you feel that I deserve it, I guess it would be a bit rude of me not to accept. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USNS Cossatot[edit]

I'm having trouble finding a reliable reference for the collision USNS Cossatot had in 1968. Does Miramar have any details? Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Hi Mjroots. Sorry to report that Miramar has no info on the 1968 collision. It only says the ship was broken up from September 1975 (by Luria Bros & Co Inc). I could add that to the article. Manxruler (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll ask over at MILHIST for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Marriage[edit]

You responded to the widow/widower ambiguity at Template talk:Marriage, can you comment on a possible solution at the current RFC. It attempts to clarify the inherent ambiguity in the template with three possible solutions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Norway Art Museum[edit]

Hey, thanks for helping improve Northern Norway Art Museum. Minor thing: I removed the COI tag you added, as there are currently no active promotional issues with the mainspace article (and because it was submitted as a draft via the WP:AFC que and accepted by an uninvolved editor -- namely me :) If the article creator User:Kjetilrydland does have a connection to the museum, perhaps the best thing is to get them in touch with the WP:GLAM project to better coordinate the museums contribution to Wikipedia. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR: Hi, no problem at all. You're welcome. My understanding of the situation, having looked at the article and the pictures associated with it, is that User:Kjetilrydland is identical with Kjetil Rydland, who (according to Northern Norway Art Museum) is the communications adviser at Northern Norway Art Museum.

Now, you've got a good point about there being no active promotional issues. In all, I think it was a correct call by you to remove that particular tag. Maybe this could, as you say, be an opportunity to get NNAM in contact with GLAM. Now, I don't do work in connection to GLAM, but maybe you do? Manxruler (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope this is the correct way to use the talk page. Yes, I'm the communications advisor at NNKM. I made the wiki page because it was heavily requested by our visitors. I'm aware of the potential promotional issues, and tried my best to only give factual information. I also know that we're supposed to wait for someone else to create the page, but since it hasn't happened yet, I assumed it wouldn't happen anytime soon. I'll look in to GLAM when I get time.Kjetilrydland (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjetilrydland:That is the correct way of using a talk page, yes. And, yes, it would have been best if someone not working for the musuem created the page, but you seem to be doing okay with avoiding promotional language. One thing, though, this tourism website you added as a third-party source probably doesn't count as a third-party source. As far as I recall, those sites get their info verbatim from the visitor attractions they promote. A better source would be something not directly connected with the museum.

And what is the English name of the museum, Northern Norway Art Museum, or Art Museum of Northern Norway? The museum's website uses both names.

Finally, a point of curiosity, do museum visitors actually request wikipages? Interesting. Manxruler (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler:Yeah, agree that it's not a very good source. The English name is Northern Norway Art Museum, we changed it some time ago (before I started working here). Thanks for the tip!Kjetilrydland (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjetilrydland: Good that's clarified, then. Btw: You don't need to use the reply template when you're posting to the talk page of the user you're communicating with, when we get messages at our own talk pages, we get notified automatically. Manxruler (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eriksen M/25 edit[edit]

Hey Manxruler, thank you for cleaning up the article I wrote about the Eriksen M/25 LMG! The nomination you mentioned would also be very nice indeed!

There is however one thing I've noticed about the weapon, and that is that the weight of it. In "Våpen brukt av Forsvaret etter 1859" it very clearly says that the weight is 26.7kg, but this sounds incredibly unlikely for a light machine gun. In addition, I emailed the Royal Norwegian Navy Museum and asked if they had any additional information about it. They sent me a copy of the patent of the weapon, including a seperate patent for the magazine system. With these patents they also sent me the papers from the weapons trial in England, and these papers clearly state that the weight is much less than 26.7kg. The actual total weight of the weapon (if we are to trust these trial papers) is listed as 14.4kg. (Gun body 24 lbs and 1 oz, the bipod 2.5 lbs, the barrel 5 lbs and 3 oz)

Is it okay if I update the article with this information instead? I have a feeling that there's been some sort of misunderstanding or mistranslation when it was all translated to Norwegian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersmm (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andersmm: Hi again. No problem at all, I was very much intrigued by the gun. It also helped that the Flatby and Myrvang book is in my personal collection to use for expanding the article.

As far as the weight goes, I agree that it sounds very heavy. More than twice as heavy as the Madsen or the Bren. Still, I'm afraid that we have to go by what reliable published sources say. If the only weight that has been stated in the published sources is 26.7 kg (Flatby and Myrvang do not mention weight), then I think our hands are tied. Have the Royal Norwegian Navy Museum published anything about the gun? A book, preferably?

I'll go take care of the DYK nom tomorrow, too tired right now. Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: It does not seem like the Navy Museum has anything published, certainly nothing that is more detailed than the info in the book by Flatby & Myrvang (which I've also acquired now). So it seems like there's only 2 sources in text-form regarding this weapon. The book by A. Antonsen and the Norwegian Armed forces Museum + the Flatby & Myrvang book. The patent + trial papers dating back to the 1920's seems like pretty reliable sources to me, but I'll let you be the judge on that, as you seem to have much more experience with Wikipedia than myself. Andersmm (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andersmm: That really is too bad. The patent and trial papers are probably reliable, but they must also be published by a reliable publisher. Now, the museum would be good enough if they'd published the papers somehow, but when that's not the case I think our hands are tied. I will have a look around to see if there's some other solution, but as it stands we got to say what the published sources say. (btw: You don't need to use the reply template when leaving messages at another user's talk page, the user the talk page belongs to automatically gets a notification when a message is left at their talk page).

@Andersmm: Update: The article has now been nominated for DYK by me (I'll go do the required review of another DYK nomination later today), and has been reviewed as being B-class. Manxruler (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andersmm: Could you possibly head over to the Royal Norwegian Navy Museum and take a photo of the gun? The article would benefit from a nice photo of the weapon. Manxruler (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter August Poppe[edit]

Hi Manxruler. You have sadly disappointed me. Twelve months ago you tagged this article for, you said, its unreliable sources. Then, I knew as a loyal Norwegian you would fix this right quick. I am wrong? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Hi there. Yes, you are wrong. That's not my job, good sir. You create an article with sourcing that "anyone can volunteer to contribute" (sources that don't even cover much of the article), then you should fix said sourcing. Do not expect (or demand) others to fix the issues you create, that's not how things work. I don't see how me being "a loyal Norwegian" (loyal to what?), or not, has anything to do with the issue. Manxruler (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: Hi there. Loyal to other Norwegians. So why did you trouble to tag it? You are anxious enough about your countrymen to tag the item. Gracesguide is most certainly an unreliable source. Nevertheless the subject existed and influenced the lives of quite a large number of people.

Is his article in (Norwegian) Wikipedia unsourced? I don't read Norwegian, Google —so far as it will go— must do it for me. I did not demand your contribution. (I do realise this is your second language.) But I did and do ask you to extend your participation and make good the article to Your satisfaction from the sources that must be available to you in your own language and inaccessible to me.

All this arises from your (apparently casual) tagging. Merry Christmas. Eddaido (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed a phrase giving POV as the reason. You should check your interpretation of POV. Eddaido (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido:Well, I disagree with regards to your assessment of my actions, and your assessment of your own actions. Loyalty to any nation has nothing to do it. Creating poorly referenced articles is a bad idea regardless of the nationality in question. And the fact that the Norwegian Wikipedia article is equally poorly referenced is irrelevant. You created the article, with sources you yourself admit are not reliable, and that action created the situation. Merry Christmas to you too. Manxruler (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't need to use the reply to template when leaving messages at other users' talk pages, we get notified when messages are left at our talk pages. Manxruler (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really!

The item under discussion is a direct copy and paste from Norwegian Wikipedia just as it says it is in its edit summary. Eddaido (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Yes, really. And now you're saying translations somehow relieve you of our responsibility to cite reliable sources when we add material to Wikipedia? In other words, you're saying Wikipedia's policy is "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources", except when the material in question is translated from other Wikipedias? I think not. Manxruler (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: No, I am saying that if you had had your wits about you at the time you would have realised the weakness lies in your national Wikipedia in which I think it can be presumed you have a natural interest. (Why else your tagging?) Should I now go tag that item in Norwegian?

I banged in this Google translation because I was writing about him elsewhere and saw the need to have this article (yes I know no-one is interested in it but it needed to be on record) What better source than an article about him written by his co-nationals? Eddaido (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to disagree with your depiction of the events in question. Norwegian-language Wikipedia didn't head over to English-language Wikipedia and create an article based on unreliable sources, you did. We're not supposed to add info based on unreliable sources, period. I have nothing whatsoever to with Norwegian Wikipedia. What the editors (including yourself) do or don't do over there does not concern me.

As for you using "an article about him written by his co-nationals" as a source, the relevant policy says "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources.". Manxruler (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say you are indeed very disagreeable and seem to enjoy escalating excitements. Have you heard the line "the devil may quote scripture for his own purpose" (a very Wikipedian thing to do). There are countless articles founded on items in other language wikipedias. There are an immense number of articles without any sources at all. I have put this man Poppe on record. If you don't like him there get shot of the article but Surely there must be some Norwegian biographical publications which include him. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I just do not agree with going against policy. As per your claim that I'm "very disagreeable", I would remind you that it was you who initiated this discussion, with your frankly peculiar statement that I had somehow "sadly disappointed" you by not fixing an article. An article which you had yourself created based on (by your own admission above) unreliable sources. Manxruler (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remain sadly disappointed. Why not just sort the article out to your satisfaction? Eddaido (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evidently you're "sadly disappointed" by the fact that I'm not letting myself be pressured by you into fixing the article which you created based on unreliable sourcing. Me, on the other hand, am disappointed by both your creation of an article based on unreliable sourcing (which is against policy) and by your very peculiar attempt at making me clean up your work. So I guess that means we're both disappointed. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am but you must not see it as some kind of reflection on yourself, that would be over-sensitive. You, a Norwegian, stepped in and put the tag on the article. I saw this as an indication of interest. I hoped you would remedy what you saw as deficiencies (I can't). Please take some space immediately below for your part of our last thoughts of this matter — I've given you mine! Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretations of other users' actions are unusual, more so is the manner in which you approached me. Please read up on WP:Verifiability. Goodbye. Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eriksen M/25[edit]

On 4 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eriksen M/25, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although only a single example of the Eriksen M/25 machine gun was built, it saw service in the 1940 Norwegian Campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eriksen M/25. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eriksen M/25), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romsdalsfjorden[edit]

Another unwarranted and totally unnecessary move, see Romsdal Fjord. --— Erik Jr. 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Thomas Hjalmar Westgård[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Hjalmar Westgård at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DavidCane (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thomas Hjalmar Westgård[edit]

On 17 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Hjalmar Westgård, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Thomas Hjalmar Westgård was born and raised in Norway, he competes internationally in cross-country skiing for Ireland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Hjalmar Westgård. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Hjalmar Westgård), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Jeff Dunham: All Over the Map[edit]

Hello there Manxruler! I just noticed your edit on Jeff Dunham: All Over the Map and was wondering what you meant by "much more c-e needed"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I mostly thought of linkwork, as in both links missing and overlinking in other places, plus some numeral issues, casing etc. I suppose "some more c-e needed" would have been more correct. I'll head over and do some more work on it to show you what I mean. Manxruler (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a clean-up of the article's main text (there's still more to to be done in the infobox). Note that we shouldn't place citations in the section headers, and that there's no need for " " in the main text. Manxruler (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: Thank you for the clarification! I used the for visual formatting but have since changed the style based on your recommendation. Thanks for the bit about the not linking in section headers! Will keep that in mind for future edits etc. Also, don't forget to {{ping|u}} or {{reply|u}} (where 'u' is user you are getting attention of) etc on posts as otherwise they can't see if you replied as quickly (unless it is their talk page) as they are not alerted otherwise. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: No problem. Best of luck with your continued editing. Regarding pinging, firstly: I know how that works (as you can see, I've used it repeatedly on this talk page). I did not ping you as I figured you'd keep an eye out for whether or not I'd replied to your message anyway. Secondly, please note that the way you just used the {{reply|u}} template here in your message to me is unnecessary. When you leave messages at other users' talk pages, they get automatically notified that they have new messages, so there's no need for pinging in those cases. Manxruler (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! As for the other comments, I saw that after posting and you have a good point. As for myself using the template here, it is out of habit more than anything. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MT GDF Suez Neprune listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MT GDF Suez Neprune. Since you had some involvement with the MT GDF Suez Neprune redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Hi Thryduulf, thanks for notifying me. I've commented over at the discussion, and I think it makes sense to delete the redirect. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fort DYK[edit]

I've made the changes and added the citations you requested on the Guy Fort DYK. In particular, your suggestion to change "the enemy" to "enemy forces" was an excellent one. I'd used the original phrasing b/c that's how the first citation stated the info, but enemy forces is indeed more NPOV. I should also note that I actually have 10 previous DYKs, all of them from a number of years ago when I was more active on Wikipedia. However, I'm once again doing more Wikipedia work and have no problem with QPQ with regards to DYK. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights: I'm glad you've responded to my suggestions, I'll reply over there. Manxruler (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed two other DYKs here and here. I also removed the Julie Vega info. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the info on his children.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me improve this article. Can I ask a question about the DYK process? I worked with this DYK nomination and approved it. But how do I make it so it shows up on list of approved DYK? It's been years since I worked on DYK and while I followed the instructions it looks like I messed something up.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights: I don't really know how that works. That part of the process is a bit above my pay grade (and the separate area for approved hooks is quite new). I would say that it's an automated process, I've never done anything actively beyond reviewing and approving the hooks. However, it seems that you've promoted the hook (a process which I think require administrator status, and which should have led to the hook being moved to the Template:Did you know/Queue page, but that doesn't seem to have worked). I think that something is broken. What I would have done now is ask another administrator, with recent DYK experience, about why the hook seems stuck in some kind of limbo. Manxruler (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not entirely sure if it is procedurally correct for one user (even an administrator) to both approve a hook, and promote said hook. Manxruler (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I didn't know that. I'll revert it to being merely approved and let someone else promote it. Thanks for letting me know.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights: No problem. I would check with someone anyway, I'm not 100% sure how those things work, seeing as I'm not an administrator. You should ask somewhere, for example the DYK discussion page. Manxruler (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Niels Larsen Bruun[edit]

On 11 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Niels Larsen Bruun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Second World War, the Norwegian naval officer Niels Larsen Bruun sank a German supply ship before he was certain which country was invading Norway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Niels Larsen Bruun. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Niels Larsen Bruun), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Kristiansand (1940)[edit]

Hello. I see from the past that you have broken in to and directed several of the articles I've written about World War II in Norway, which I appreciate. I also see that you have authored the articles the Capture of Arendal and the Capture of Egersund. Although I have written about Odderøya, an article I constantly develop, the Battle of Kristiansand in 1940 was a much more extensive operation than the occupations of the other two cities, that included the use of German land and air force capacities. It deserves more attention on Wikipedia. In such an article should also the civilian devastation in the city of Kristiansand and the capture of Kjevik airbase be included. I realize that such an article would be a bigger task than I'm willing to do alone. I plead therefore to you to help to write the article. We can work together to find good sources and create a good Wikipedia article. As you can see from the article on Odderøya, I have found many sources already. What do you think? Carsten R D (talk) 17 April 20:43 CET

@Carsten R D: Hi Carsten. I agree that an article on that battle should be created at some point, and as it happens I have been working on and off on that particular article for a good while. I have located reliable sources (books by reliable authors) and written up a some initial notes on the subject off-line (that's how I prefer to do larger amounts of work, thinker with article drafts off-line before eventually launching them).

At this moment health and work issues prevent me from rapidly undertaking the task of completing my notes on this battle into an article. In time, maybe quite soon, once my health issues are gone and I can clear my real-life work schedule, I should be able to begin serious work on completing that particular article. The battle does deserve a complete, well-sourced, quality article.

As you say, this was a much larger scale event than for example Arendal or Egersund (with Allied involvement, naval and air forces, a fortress, a bombardment, etc., etc.), and it will take time to complete a quality article on it. However, I can assure you that it is one of my top-three article drafts to complete, so in time things should work out. The good thing about this project is, we don't have a deadline. Manxruler (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: Hi again. While we are waiting for the Wikipedia article about the Battle of Kristiansand to be completed, I hope you (or others) will help to improve the article about Odderøya, so it can meet the criteria to be graded up and be recognized as a good article. Carsten R D (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bjarne Keyser Barth[edit]

On 23 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bjarne Keyser Barth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on his 48th birthday, artillery officer Bjarne Keyser Barth was tasked by his commander with surrendering a fortress to invading German troops? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bjarne Keyser Barth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bjarne Keyser Barth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian campaign[edit]

Hi Manxruler,

now I see you revised my edit regarding the Altmark incident back in March. Altmark in fact reached Norwegian waters on the 14 February at around 05:00 near Halten Lighthouse. The British aeroplanes did only "found" her on the 16th just before 16:00. In about 50 minutes the British destroyers came in sight. The 3 Hudsons than flew back before Altmark even turned into the fjord and there were no other planes that day there. Hence the picture could not have been taken on the 16th.

Please take a look at this book:

Geirr H. Haarr: The Gathering Storm – The Naval War In Europe September 1939 -April 1940 (Altmark Incident pp 352-389.), Seaforth Publishing 2013, ISBN: 9781848321403

Excellent book and most of it online available. --Andreas (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas P 15: Hi. Yes, I own that book (I own all of Haarr's books, btw).

I reverted you back in March because you changed referenced information and replaced it with unreferenced information, something which we shouldn't really do. I'll have a look at what Haarr says, if it conflicts with what the previously cited sources state, then Haarr's version might have to be added, although a probably more sensible way to go about things could be to reduce the level of info about the Altmark Incident in the Norwegian Campaign article somewhat. Manxruler (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a lucky one. I do not have any of them. --Andreas (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas P 15: They're quite good. Haarr isn't an academic, but I believe he has a master's degree and he's thorough in his research. I would trust him more than pretty much all other non-academic writers in his particular field. He's mostly written in English, but also a single book in Norwegian. Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he's book is the best source for the Altmark Incident available. Now I'm trying to expand the article. I see you are Norwegian. Do you know something about the Norwegian Neutrality Regulations from 1939? I was seeking for it but there is nothing to be found online in English or German. I have written to IWM regarding the photo with false data. Still no answer. Maybe tomorrow they will read it. --Andreas (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas P 15: It's pretty good, yes. It ranks quite high amongst sources easily available to the English-reading audience.

Yes, I know of those regulations. I'll have a look in my book collection and see what is what. Could take a couple of days, seeing as I'm somewhat busy these days. Manxruler (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth an article. These regulations weren't part of the Hague Conventions, were they? It's a crazy question I know, but I have a fierce debate about it. As Haarr and others suggest, Captain Dau hasn't violate the Hague Convention in Norwegian waters, only the neutrality regulations. Hence his passage wasn't "völkerrechtswidrig" (violating the international law). What is the opinion in Norway? --Andreas (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas P 15: As far as I remember the neutrality regulations weren't that special. As far as I recall (and I haven't really looked at it for a while, so I won't be 100% sure until I've looked it up), the issue with Altmark from the Norwegian point of view, was that the ship at one point entered a restricted Norwegian naval area (Bergen harbour, I think). There was something about foreign government ships entering restricted naval zones which wasn't okay with the Norwegian authorities, I believe. Also, it probably didn't help that the Germans insisted that they weren't carrying prisoners while they were doing exactly that.

I'll look it up, no worries. Who are you debating with, by the way? Manxruler (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With someone on German Wiki. Not an academic of course :) But maybe he's right. I give him a very slight chance. Thank you for bothering about the subject. --Andreas (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas P 15: No problem at all. Will ping you once I've had a look. Manxruler (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kongsberg Miners and "obvious copy vio"[edit]

Hello! I have a written consent from the photograph of that photo you removed from the Kongsberg Miners article. He is a sports journalist in the local Laagendalsposten newspaper from Kongsberg. I asked him and he gave me permission to use the photo. I find it rude that you write "obvious copy vio"! I can send you a screenshot if you want to. Can you put the photo back there? - Suppeelsker.

@Suppeelsker: Hi there. Your upload over at Wikimedia Commons did not provide any proof that the photographer had released the photo under an appropriate licence. You only provided a link to a news article where the photo was used, with no proof of the photo having been released under an appropriate licence.

Hence, I removed the photo from the article. The photo was then reviewed over at Commons (after I tagged it for review), and found to be in violation of copyright. You can't merely upload photos that anyone can find on the internet to Commons. You need to document that the photo has been released under a licence that's okay for Wikimedia Commons, meaning that anyone can use the photo for any purpose.

Now, if you have documentation that proves that the photographer is okay with the photo being released under a free licence (and be used by anyone for any purpose), then you must use Wikimedia's OTRS system. The folks at OTRS can recreate the photo file, if you provide a permission statement by the photographer.

The same goes with the team logo you uploaded, you need to provide a permission statement from the original author there too. Manxruler (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Manxruler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Norwegian expatriate sportspeople in Romania[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian expatriate sportspeople in Romania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Afghan expatriates in Norway[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Afghan expatriates in Norway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Political sex scandals in Norway[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Political sex scandals in Norway indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Algerian emigrants to Norway[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Algerian emigrants to Norway indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian jujutsuka has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Norwegian jujutsuka has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]