Victor falk

Hi, Victor. Thanks for working on the new cognitive module article. I like your list of references, but could you please weave the references in as cites in support of assertions in the new, rewritten-from-scratch, article, to avoid the "reading list" format of the old article?

I'll put your cite list on the talk page, so it isn't lost. -- The Anome 15:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll try to do that. I'll also go through the "further reading" list and check which ones are more relevant.--Victor falk 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'm pretty sure there's a good article to be written on this subject, which is a one of the most important current topics in cognitive science, evolutionary psychology and neurobiology. -- The Anome 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll never outgrow the enjoyment I get from that first vote on an AfD. Thanks for your participation. / edg ? ? 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading the nifty image Image:World war one web alliance.jpg. Do you have any additional information on it you could add-- eg, source, artist, date? Thanks! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment. It is hard to keep articles like that neutral when the politicians and the media in many countries fails to be neutral on the topic.--Sir Anon (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the wording to what you suggested. The Transhumanist (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the useful addition. As far as adding the officer doctrine, are you thinking of Auftragstaktik as one concept is described by the US military, or something else? There is an existing article about Mission-type tactics, and there is no question that current US doctrine owes much to these German ideas. Should the Force Multiplication article link to that article, or are you thinking more about the doctrine belongs in Force Multiplication?

I discovered there is also an article on "Force multiplier", and it really seems silly not to merge the articles; I'll propose that on the Force Multiplier page.

Whether or not it would be notable in the context of this article might be questioned, but it might be very appropriate to add something about GEN Heinrici's defensive tactics toward the end of WWII. By having multiple defensive lines, using intelligence and judgment as to when the Soviets were about to bombard the forward line, and pulling back the troops so they are in position for the attack, is, to me, an excellent example of force multiplication in the defense. Would you like to write something on this, or on officer doctrine? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was thinking about Auftragstaktik, thank you; naturally linking it to "mission-type tactics". Doctrine as a force multiplier is often overlooked/forgotten, I guess because of the unbalanced US technofirepower fixation:) As John Boyd would have it, "Wars are fought with people, ideas, and hardware. In that order!"

I consider Heinrici one of the best German WWII commanders; have you read Ryan's "The Last Battle"? His way of compensating totally overwhelming odds is perhaps one of the best examples of how superior tactics can act as a force multiplier, so yes I think it's appropriate to have that in article. I can tink of writing about both doctrine and Heinrici.

Yeah, I saw that on the milhist talk page. I definitely support a merger. --victor falk 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you mY have something here. :-) Metaphorically I think it actually works well with "Ex bello" for reasons I explain on the project page. PetersV (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for that, the two comments were posted just before I've made my reply to the afd tag issue and likely have stomped and annulled previous edits before. This happens quite often when you edits a page on its current version while multiple users are also doing edits to it at the same time. I had never removed intentionally removed or touched those comments. Thanks for alerting me for that. --JForget 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suspected something like that. I worried about my sense of humour, it's bad, but not that much... btw, your edit summary was "tk", what does it mean?--victor falk 15:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just an abbreviated way to say thanks.--JForget 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks for letting me know about. It is on my watchlist, and I'll definitely participate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. I find the topic of interest and hope to contribute something useful. Thanks for alerting me. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't it be formatted like another notability guideline, ala Wikipedia:Notability (people)? There might be a school one already? • Lawrence Cohen 06:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There isn't. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) does exist, but it is just basically a redirect or dab page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Well, this is obviously overdue. • Lawrence Cohen 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting this up. It will be useful to have well-defined standards. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• As this image has been restored to an article I have removed the deletion warning. Thank you for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Honey tastes sweet, and so do you" is pretty funny. I took your point, but tried to improve it a bit. —Whig (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon-Bot (STOP!) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I took a wikibreak in december, but it's been a little longer, since i've busier than expected in the other world; I've tried to check when looking up articles and see what's up, and I'm hopping to be done w/ most irl-stuff in a month or two. Do make some suggestions on this page, and I'll try to get on with'em. Merry easter all, victor falk 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've followed your suggestions and created a Lester Basil Sinclair stub, as the draft on your subpage was perfectly good enough for one. I made a couple of edits too, hope they'll help you in editing it further. Cheers, ¨--victor falk 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why thank you. I pulled all the reasearch and should be able to get at least a few paragraphs out of it. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm sure that if we had several people working on it, it could be fully categorised before the close of the AfD Review. I agree with your title suggestion, although personally I would use "people" rather than "persons". --Grimhelm (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not. I am partial to Risk, though, and my recent wargaming been moving more toward historical themes. --Grimhelm (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, two is several, isn't? Ah, Risk. Especially with home rules like the "Dr. Strangelove", "Spirit of the Falkland", "Vikings", "Coke Cartels", "Blietzkrieg", "Mongolic hordes"...¨¨ victor falk 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Viktor, the section made some sweeping statement I do not agree with. Standard French does not distinguish two o's or two a's on the phonemic level. There are dialects which do, of course, but this was unclear in the section. Still, after consideration, I think that 'disputed' was probably too strong, so I reworded the section and added ^{[citation needed]} to claims which sound a bit dubious to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I still have it! It's over at http://internet.wikia.com/wiki/Comparison_of_web_hosting_services but very untidy. --Jesdisciple (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Darwin sexual caricature.gif to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Richard001 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yemen air force roundel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask where you got the location of Tora Bora ? I have found lat and long for it -- which, if I recall correctly, put it almost directly south of Jalalabad.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I based the coordinates (34°07′N 70°13′E) upon these maps: [1], [2],[3]., [4], [5]. The approximation to a minute degree (one nautical mile, 1.82 something kilometers as I recall) might be a tad too accurate, but I'm fairly sure it is within 5-10 km, max, of that. If the lat and long you found is more exact and reliable, please by all means do correct it.¨¨ victor falk 01:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Victor. Please join the discussion at Talk:Afghan Girl (photo)#Not a biography if you have the time/inclination. Thanks. —CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Spanish Treasure Fleet.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spanish Treasure Fleet.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Spanish Treasure Fleet.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI this article is at AFD again. You participated in the previous AFD and so may wish to take another look. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You done good :) Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entries there are submitted by the software developers themselves. It's not an independent source for any software. Pcap ping 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The potential exception is the article's section. I've used one of those in the page on ratpoison, but that was written by the main guy behind Freshmeat. Pcap ping 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What article was it? I don't remember and there's several software afd's I've !voted on in the past couple of days, it seems I didn't watchlisted it ¨¨ victor falk 15:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Muine for example, but a couple of others as well. Pcap ping 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're correct about that one, so I've removed it [6] ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

thank you, I'll do that^walk victor falk ^talk 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello JBSupreme,
I harbour doubts that misunderstand this policy; it does not forbid any and all kind of lists on wikipedia. Lists on wikipedia are, ipse facto, directories. I would like to refer, if are you umaware of them, to wp:list, wp:standalone and wp:cln. After reading them, you might ponder on wherefore I !voted as I did on first on the AfD's for the bbs software and sharpie markers lists. If you still disagree after that and would not change how you !voted, I'd like you to explain me why so that we might discuss it.
Thank you.^walk victor falk ^talk 10:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am comfortable with your comments, you seem like a rational and level headed guy. JBsupreme (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I was checking article's that I've recently edited and noticed a discrepancy that you may be able to help me with. In the article 197856 Tafelmusik, the first reference says it was discovered in 2004. The second reference says "first obs. used 2001-??-??" Currently the infobox uses the 2001 date but the article has my previous edit claiming a discovery date of 2004. Is the 2004 date wrong or was it was first spotted in 2001 but not recognized as a new asteroid until 2004? In other words, are both dates correct, but for different purposes, or should we change 2004 to 2001? Thank you for any help you can provide. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is so that it was first identified as an asteroid in 2004, and that 2001 was the earliest unidentified observation that was used retroactively as an element to calculate an orbit("date of first observation used in the fit"). I am not sure of what the convention is regarding to what is first observation, so I'll ask Wikiproject astronomy, see what they say. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I happened to catch your post to the Wikiproject astronomy page while patrolling Recent Changes. Thank you for taking the time to seek confirmation. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would seem that the 2001 would be a precovery image, 2004 would be the discovery. -- Kheider (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I had forgotten that word. I see that the article hasn't any picture, and you have lots on frontpage; do you know what was the earliest ever precovery? And where one could find that image?^walk victor falk ^talk 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

2060 Chiron was discovered in 1977, but there is a precovery photo from 1895, when Chiron was at perihelion (closest approach to the Sun). -- Kheider (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

is it allowed upload this file at commons:Libellus de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium ac popularium super ludo scachorum.jpg? There's other file from Caxton's book in commons. Thanks OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there should be any problems, it's pretty clear the artist has been dead for more than one hundred years. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 22:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing the referencing on the Manny the Hippie article. It's in a much better state now than when I nominated it - I have no problem with the article existing now. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Boston is named after Boston, Lincolnshire, still the topic that gave the name to the other is not the primary. What is name after what is not relevant to determine what is the primary topic. Primary topic is about usage in the English language. I replied at Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did reply. TopoChecker (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

@ didactic - the proposal is not to make the dog page having the plain name. I would oppose that. I would simple want Chihuahua be the dab page. Then all links can be adjusted to point to the correct topic, just yesterday a fixed between 10 and 20 links that pointed to the plain name, but meant the dog. WP links will be more precise with more dab pages. And less fights about whether biology or geography is more important. Both names are proper names, not normal English language words. TopoChecker (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not flat out opposed to making Chihuahua the dab. However, this might be delicate from a procedural point of view. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you be more specific what problems could arise? TopoChecker (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how I would handle this myself. Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment, nice you liked it. Your reply and that of HiLo48 made me smile.

Very interesting how the outcome for deletion voting on Victoria (Western Australia) will be. Maybe this Victoria renaming discussion will, beside the Gallic Empire also make a little(?) obscure hill famous. TopoChecker (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It has been renamed to Victoria Hill, funny there is a person of that name. If one day it get's a dab like the Gallic Victoria, it would be Victoria Hill (Australia). How misleading. Since the delete nomination I created a copy at User:TopoChecker/Victoria. I will check you links and see to create more articles, hopefully there is one bigger Victoria Hill. TopoChecker (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the problem is there is a content dispute between editors (the fact that a subpage with an alternative version has been created is very symptomatic) and AfD is not the forum to resolve it.

Just to Clarify I wrote a lot of content for the original article, and received a lot of flack from Viriditas for it. The Sandbox version by me was an attempt to appease his concerns - which has recieved more flack from him than the original article did (including his starting an OR report against me). Essentially I feel I've been pressured into an edit war with myself and personally I would be happy with the current version with some further tidying Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is a link to German soldier who refused .... the article on Serbian language. If you are not happy with Google Translator let me know.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

One more link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is one more pic and one more and link to a blog . Thank you for posting your comment. You made my day.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

In English, the regions and departements of France do not have articles preceding their names, as is evidenced by not only the articles on the regions themselves (Languedoc-Roussillon and Limousin) but also the introductions to the articles listed above. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I can go with that. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:File-Anaconda Strategy vs Insurgents 101020.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) User Mapa12139878 Hi Victor Please Create Page Rhylee Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.142.87 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

See here. So much for WP:BITE. Any ideas on evaluating the 2000 edits they made? Franamax (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor What is your name Hi Victor Falk Please upload Eva LaRue please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.134.144 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Victor,

do you think you could give some more information about File:LOCAAS.gif? I know it's been a while since the upload, but there is given no source and no author. I would like to transfer it to Commons in order to use it at de:Low Cost Autonomous Attack System. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was from FAS.org, but they seeded to have pulled down the picture. An alternative is http://accessscience.com/popup.aspx?figID=016800FG0020&id=016800&name=figure. 08:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Георги Тодоров Hi Victor please a create page rhylee Richards 94.236.131.10 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ich verstehe nicht. Bitte schön ein erklärung? ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reason why I got involved in the Assange article is related to the question of how events from abroad are reported in another country and in particular how to translate not only words but the concepts behind them. I think the media do not make enough effort to explain differences between countries. I have tried to find out at what point "charges" are filed in Sweden, in the UK and in the US, and what "filing charges" actually means in the three countries but have not really succeeded. When I saw the word "Aussteiger" in the German article from which I quoted today I was reminded of this general problem. Aussteiger means getting out (aussteigen) of something (a train, the rat race, Wikileaks), often something that is not good or is not good for you but there is no word in English which conveys exactly this meaning. I wonder whether there is an expression in Swedish which conveys the exact American-English meaning of "charges have not yet been filed". Sorry for the long explanation, I should not have mentioned Aussteiger at all ... KathaLu (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

i thought your edit to HBGary was very interesting, but unfortunately I have to agree with the other editor, CatalystParadox, who removed it because crowdleaks is not really a reliable source. . . . Decora (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this edit. I didn't like the way it was (and I wrote it), but couldn't come up with a less awkward phrasing. Yours was a significant improvement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Victor do you mind if I remove the current event template , its not really required through the template definition or beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, either way is fine by me. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool, the trial isn't scheduled until April so that would make it a pretty long current event, and in truth, there is nothing much going on presently, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article 10–0 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10–0 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You recently participated in a straw poll regarding the above article. New options have been crafted at Talk:Ruby-gate#New options, and your input is welcome. -Rrius (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm a Wikipedian since 2003, but thank you anyway. 95.132.84.187 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just came here to leave a similar message, been editor for years...appreciate the sentiment, but is leaving such welcomes on dynamic IPs really useful? 92.21.199.156 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I left a comment for you on en.WN. - Amgine (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor. You !voted support at the requested move discussion, which has been relisted. Since you last commmented, consensus has shifted slightly to support "Somalian literature" rather than "Somali literature". Can you revisit the above discussion to either re-affirm your support or to take a new stance on the RM? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your message there. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Colin Hatch has been reopened as AFD. If you feel like it join the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm notifying contributors to the 1953 Iranian coup article about a proposed change in the article posted on the talk page, that adds information about events leading up to the coup. Only a couple of comments so far. Am planning to request comments WP:RfC later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t |[[Special:Contributio}

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC) ns/Ocaasi| c]] 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ping on Talk:Paulskirchenverfassung#Title_of_this_article. Int21h (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I would like to inform you that the afc submission located here: User:Victor falk/ragab has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ragab, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Pais (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor, I have worked on the national security article, adding whatever I could. The truth is that predominantly, the subject has been dominated by American and European thinkers. I am adding more references I have found but the overall proportion dioes not change much. Being an Indian, I think, takes some bias away. I just wanted to know, I am removing the tag. If you object, please feel to revert once my new additions are over if you feel that this is still the case. AshLin (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

victor, I'm a writer in Scotland. I'm keen to speak about one of the Darien maps. Could you get in touch at dean.scott@virginmedia.com, thanks81.102.107.24 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.Reply

FYI, I've nominated the article "Men and feminism" for deletion. You were active on its previous delete discussion, so I thought I'd let you know.

The delete discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Men_and_feminism_(2nd_nomination)

Equaaldoors (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been nominated for deletion, since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one, the discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

You're recieving this message as a contributor to WikiProject Spirits in the past. Currently many members work solo and articles that interest themselves, we'd like to pull the Spirits group together to allow us to raise the overall quality of articles under our banner. If you're still active on Wikipedia and keen on contributing to WikiProject Spirits, head over to the talk page and lend your voice to the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:Technoviking.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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.

The depicted person has never agreed to be published, per court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno_Viking#cite_note-19 + following. --Trofobi (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Technoviking.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Trofobi (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flags of the Middle East3.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ragab, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Victor falk. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled ragab.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ragab}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Infobox Military Conflict coup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present). Since you had some involvement with the Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you please look at this, then do you really want to oppose the name used in tourist guides? I should have simply presented this link as the rationale, and could have saved a lot of wasted bytes. In any case I have asked for a relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and I see 629 results. When I type with an "i" I see 456 results. That is absolutely insufficient, especially when we're talking about litterature like travel and tourist literature, that will try to use names as close as the local language as possible, that is updated and becomes obsolete extremely frequently, and that has a vested interest in adopting names that spund "new" and "exotic". Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thank you for all your constructive edits! You might bear in mind that some of the Swedish kings of more ancient times are virtually unknown to English literature and that assigning Swedish names to them as if they are English names is not always appropriate. I am a strong believer in English text that is as phonetically smooth and orally readable as possible. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all I'd like to say I much appreciate all the views on your user page. Excellent and very helpful. Matters at hand:

• As far as I understand wp:ncroy, the bold intro should be name 99, even if the article is titled name 99 of country, unless "name 99 of country" is the wp:commonname. E.g. Henry IV of France: "Henry IV (13 December 1553 – 14 May 1610), Henri-Quatre ", or Henry IV of England: "Henry IV (15 April 1367 – 20 March 1413) was King of England and".
• Isn't "Canutesson" an accepted exonym of "Knutsson"? Clarifying that "Magnusson" is "Magnus' son" is redundant and superfluous, but that "Nilsson" is "Nicholas' son" is not obvious, even to a Swedish-speaker.

Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! As to your first point, I do not know policy, but I think it's always clearer to start the article text with the full bolded article name when possible and unless it causes a problem. In these cases, I can't see it does. As to your second question I fully agree about Canuteson and son of Nicholas in principle, but have also (contradictorily) learned the hard way (after many battles) that we are not allowed to introduce new names (not supported in other literature) into English WP. Every good wish ~ --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't "of Sweden" redundant? Like for instance: "Eric "X"[1] of Sweden, Swedish: Erik Knutsson; Old Norse: Eiríkr Knútsson (c. 1180 – 10 April 1216) was the King of Sweden between 1208 and 1216."? (emphasis added) ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, no more so that writing e.g. Saint Francis of Assisi was a resident of Assisi for a long time. In other words, we can have it or omit it without much difference, except, as I said, it's always clearer to start the article text with the full bolded article name. The idiom kung av Sverige in Swedish is a bit more formal - högtravande - than King of Sweden in English. Could that be what's making you react? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

My first language is French, so I'm rather tolerant of "högtravande" speechifying (: It's more that I was mercilessly drilled at school (French, of course) to avoid repetitions close to each other in a text (and absolutely not in the same sentence!!). Plus, it allows then wikilinking to Sweden or monarchy of Sweden or whathaveyou. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor,

Thanks for the message. I want to be sure I understand it, though. You are encouraging me to sign my posts, such as the post I left on the list of fictional diseases page. Just to make sure I am understanding where I may have gaffed, or your are trying to be helpful, please check all that apply:

[ ] It is not apparent that I did sign with link to my page, time, and date. (To me it is apparent, but perhaps I did so in the wrong place, or not in all places I needed to. Edit: Oh wait, I see I goofed the time stamp.).

[ ] It is apparent that I signed my post, but I did so manually (i.e. without the quad-tilde code), and don't I know it would be so much easier to type quad-tilde?. (Incidentally, my answer here is: Ohhhhh! I thought quad-tilde was only for use in the descriptive line (right above the check-box for "This is a minor edit"). That's super helpful, thanks!

[ ] Something else entirely. :)

Best, Lexy-lou (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Lee (screenwriter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please provide your opinion on the alternate proposal to move the article in question to Confederate Arizona. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, victor falk, would you join this discussion please? I see that you hesitated for a few edits and then made Harald III into a redirect. We don't quite agree on that ~. Thanks. SzMithrandir (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palantir Technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of civil wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I'm a bit dismayed that people would want to delete referring to the GR. Could you refer me to where this discussion is taking place?
• Same with the internet, it's the most important phenomenon from both a social and economical point of view in the last quarter century, it's like talking about Britain in the late XIXth century without mentioning railroads and steam power.
• Leaving out the above would leave a completely vapid and bland sentence mumbling sweet nothings about the economy, and two sentences about 911 & it's aftermath. Might as well do away with the section altogether in that case. Am I right in suspecting there are some editors supporting that option?

/Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Contemporary section has been the subject of huge discussion (marked as such on the talk page), and I'd suggest arguing for your changes there if you really feel that strongly about them. But I'll warn you that the alternative proposal to the current internet sentence was much shorter, and the general sentiment throughout the History section has been in favor of streamlining, so I don't know how much stomach there will be for expanding it, especially if we lose the explicit part about its origins in the process, instead simply offering a cryptic segment about who had access to it early on. So far at least two editors, including me, have argued that the entire Obama sentence should go because it's recentism, but with one editor offering some resistance we recently just took the measured step (at least for now) of shortening it. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

As I say in my edit summary "Echo, because of its hydrographic and bathymetric capabilities for mapping the ocean floor, is the more important resource".

The hierarchy is survey ship > submarine > other ships with sonar.

A survey ship has all the necessities for oceanographic analysis, such as salinity, currents, etc. It's also crucial as a node for coordinating the search between the sub and other assets, since a submerged can only communicate via British military UHF radio networks.

Echo has also Command & Control facilities aboard for coordinating with other naval assets.

The submarine's main advantage is that it can move silently much faster while listening for pings, thus covering a much larger area. Other than that, it is just another ship. /Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will begin adding those images into a separate section for discussion momentarily.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

First off, thank you for being a very reasonable editor to debate with. But I wanted to at least give you a few qualifiers on which to base a few things ( you may look at the areas if you wish to see my contributions). I contribute on a regular basis to Non Free content review and have helped write some of the criteria, or at least to keep the information correct per the consensus of editors. Been a while since I was there but have been active on and off for some time. I am a member of Project illustration and a regular contributor to Wikimedia Commons with both, images I have created and images I have transferred from Flickr our have been given permission to upload by the copyright holder.

I am a regular Good Article reviewer and understand the criteria for GA which indicates that image use policy must be adhered to in order to be listed as GA. Images are always the first thing I review as that is one of my areas of expertise. Knowledge of copyright, Freedom of Panorama and relevance to content etc.. I am an experienced editor who has been on Wikipedia as a registered user since 2007 (about the same amount of time as you) and volunteer regularly on many of our noticeboards including WP:RS, WP:DRN, WP:ANI, WP:BLP and many others when I have the time. Nobody is perfect and I make mistakes like everyone else and when I know I have erred I admit it. Should the need arise, I have no problem saying "I'm sorry" or just "I apologize". I am a major contributor to WP:BRD and a contributor to WP:V which includes a recent re-write I made to the "Burden" policy. I also help out at the Teahouse questions and answers page. I am also one of the regular contributors to United States with the first sentence being mostly my edits and the two references there I contributed. But this is just a means of explaining that I strive to learn and help as much as possible. This does not make me "right", it just makes me an editor. I hope we can collaborate and improve the article enough to raise it to GA eventually, but there is no hurry. There never is.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Love, LOVE, LOVE the tesla image!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@User talk:Mark Miller Unfortunately, an editor has switched their !vote for a picture of the LEM. I think the Tesla+Apollo Soyuz gives widest covering of science, space race and the cold war, so if you agree about the Soyouz, it would increase Teslas's chances. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mark Miller Yeah, I think there is a longing for the former glory of GA status, that manifests itself as trying to hold up a status quo as close to it as possible. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is sad that editors would rather hold on to content just because it is "long standing" and not because it is accurate or inline with policy and guidelines but that is very common on articles as contentious as the United States. I am mostly concerned with what appears to be unacceptable labeling of what constitutes an American in that discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mark Miller "Long-standing" is such a circular non-argument. "-Why do we have to keep this picture? Because it's been there a long time. -Why has it been there a long time? -Because we have kept it." I wonder what is the way to make people realise that, without upsetting them. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Game design (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rule, Player, Play and War game

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axis powers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Front Populaire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Bluefin-21 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! Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On 29 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bluefin-21, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bluefin-21 is an underwater drone that is being used in search operations for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bluefin-21. 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) 20:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please be more careful not to overwrite others' edits on talk pages. If you receive an edit conflict, paste your comments into the top box below what was added in the meantime rather than whatever you have been doing. And refactoring a thread to change the order in which comments are placed is generally wrong - comments should be left in the order in which they are placed, regardless of edit conflicts. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know all that, sometimes you just slip. Can I ask you some questions, since you're here anyway? Were you an active editor on that page in 2010? How was the transition then if you were there? ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't sure, because you did it twice. Nevertheless, no, I wasn't still active on the WWII page by 2010 - I left probably around 2008 because it wasn't worth my time engaging in the constant arguments (only some of which were over the infobox). Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did I? It was some combination of saving without previewing and closing the wrong tab. So you were there during the transition from 5+3 to 0? From what I understand from the archives, it was due to constant bickering over whether France or China were to have to fourth place, if alphabetical was better, and whether "Soviet Union" or "USSR" should be used if so, or chronological date of entry in the war, and such. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, here was the second time. But yes, I was there when we decided to just use the links to the main articles. There were constant arguments over ordering combatants, whether more than just the 5 and 3 should be included (since, for instance, Australians and Canadians would periodically come by to point out that they were independent dominions, and thus shouldn't be lumped in with Britain - or the frequent "You're including FRANCE? They surrendered after 6 weeks of fighting! Then you must include 'my favorite country' too!" line of argument), and so forth. We eventually concluded that the only way to stop the endless, pointless arguments was to limit it strictly to the main lists. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow that's strange, you actually restored my comment and I can't find an individual diff of me adding it. About the matter, this goes with my opinion that it's in human nature to actively seek such things to bicker about. Deflecting them to argue about the relative ordering of Mexico and Luxembourg acts as foil, leaving the much more important top of the list stable, where a constant shifting around actually sends a bad message. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

That people have a tendency to act like children is generally true, which is why the best option is to simply take the toy away rather than allow them to continue to bicker over who gets to play with it. That was partly the reason we removed the infobox to a sub-template in the first place - to prevent the constant drive-by additions/subtractions/reordering of combatants/leaders (or at least make them more difficult to do). Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that can work. But then the whining will be about why the WWII box is different from all the others, why can't it be like the others, and then you spend your time explaining instead of editwarring. Which in my POV is entirely sterile blather, while editwars can result in actually positive results, especially if one tries to keep a constructive attitude. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have restrung my "vote" at Talk:Afghan Girl and needed to move one of your comments as a result, dif I hope that's OK with you and admit it was my error in putting my "vote" at the bottom of the discussion rather than in the poll. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Victor, as far as I can see you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature of the Irish state, so really you should accept that when seven editors – Irish, British and others – tell you that "Republic of Ireland" is correct and it would be wrong to change it, it means that it is correct and it would be wrong to change it. There is nothing wrong with asking questions on talk pages like the Irish Collaboration project, but if you are the neophyte and the respondents are the people who have been working on these articles over the years, it's not courteous to continue to ignore what they are saying.
FYI, although you may have been told that the state is not officially called the Republic of Ireland, that is not true. By the statute of the Irish legislature that has been linked to several times on that page, Republic of Ireland is the description of the state, "description" meaning what the state may be called. Although ROI is used less often, both officially and unofficially, than the constitutional name Ireland, it is no less official for that.
Can I ask you, as a favour, not to intervene in the discussion again, just allow it to take its course and abide by the result? Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor,

I've seen your contributions to French WWII-related articles recently. I've got French prisoners of war in World War II (a fairly important subject in the topic) up for GAN and am looking for a reviewer. Don't suppose it would interest you? Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can start the review by starting this page. The guidance is here if you haven't done one of these before. Thanks very much for this! Brigade Piron (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not forgotten about it, I hope ;) Brigade Piron (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anything? Brigade Piron (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am so sorry for my mistake on Talk:Melancholia. You absolutely did not make the offending edit to the redirect and I was dead wrong. You have my sincerest apologies. Red Slash 04:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Rather, you did and immediately undid the action, which obviously is not bad at all. I am so embarrassed and upset with myself. You don't deserve that!) Red Slash 04:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's ok, errare humanum est and all that, and I myself find who has down what often very confusing. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of places in Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zargaran

Participants in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Third Republic

Storting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Burgher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I replied on my talk page and added a comment to the article's talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Further comment. For an article about the German occupation of France, a translation of the French Wikipedia article "Occupation de la France par l'Allemagne" would be a good start IMO. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion at Talk:Military occupation of France#Dab page, since you previously edited the associated page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Victor. Just letting you know that I've closed the RM you started at Talk:Marjah as moved and have moved all the articles except for Sabz Dasht (Khwahan) because there is already an article at the proposed title, Sabz Dasht. They look like duplicates to me, so you might just want to merge them. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free French Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IIIrd Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestions on the WWII talk page. I have responded but will now be away for a few days. If you in turn respond and there is a delay at my end, please bear with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rjensen and Brigade Piron, as I am GA-reviewing that article, I'd like to hear your views on the details of the previous dispute and whether it has been resolved to your satisfactions. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hope so? Brigade Piron (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No it's not to my satisfaction--I simply tired of wasting my time fighting with Brigade Piron who totally rewrote the article and repeatedly and immediately rejects any suggestions I make with what I consider poor editing technique. 1) He makes unfortunate mistakes -- when I wrote that "60,000 SURVIVED" he immediately deleted it because he misread that as 60,000 KILLED. I asked him to revert his mistake and he did not. 2) For another example he writes "the "cult of return" I am not keen on - it's a scholarly term that Fishman has tried to invent, but it does not appear anywhere outside that article (in a minor journal)." That is arrogance -- the quote was by two leading scholars in a reliable source and also a major scholarly book. 3) He erased much of the sourced info I added and refuses to allow it to return, saying "I do feel that copying and pasting text directly from an older version is just unhelpful." Why is it unhelpful--he is unable to say. He says "I believed it didn't quite make it." -- that is arrogance. 4) In my opinion some of his key edits "don't quite make it," and degrade the article esp by obscuring the great importance of the POW issue in social history. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm genuinely bemused by these comments which I think, from the existing conversation on the article's and on my own talk pages, I believe I have already addressed. I must say, however, that I find Rjensen's rather confrontational style in this debate (perfectly exemplified here) does not help and goes against the whole collaborative point of Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of "arrogance", "scant respect", "heavy handed erasures based on compete misreadings", "unacceptable sexism", "very bad editing" and "edit warring". I really do not want to reopen this, but if I may, in brief respond to the numbered points above:

1. I think this is amply discussed in the talk, but Rjensen insists on rewriting exactly the same thing and becoming increasingly aggressive each time. I accept that your source says that 60,000 survived but since another extremely reputable source describes how the initial figure of colonial POWs was 120,000, we cannot simply accept both and ignore the other 60,000 in the gap who seem to have simply evaporated.
2. There is a tonne of scholarship on this area more generally. Probably the most notable are Durand (1981) and Gascar (1967), both of which are full length book. We simply cannot include all their comments - one single article (by an already-cited author) in a minor journal uses the neologism "cult of return" to describe a phenomenon already discussed in the text. We simply cannot cover everything any source says on the topic of French prisoners of war, and I'd say this is less notable than other material. But I reiterate - there is already considerable description of the phenomenon in question to which the cult of return refers in the text.
3. Copying and pasting is theoretically fine, provided that it adds new information in a coherent way. The text you insisted on adding was just copied and pasted and, if you'll excuse me, dumped into the new article. There was repetition and the lot was poorly sourced. By all means add to the article, but try to make sure that at least the article is as coherent and structured afterwards as it is beforehand.
4. There is an entire, lengthy section in the article called "Effects in occupied France", dealing with nothing but social and gender history from the perspective of occupied France! I fail to see how the coverage could be deeper while actually mentioning the POWs themselves!

I have already offered to take this to arbitration, as we're not going to reach any kind of agreement otherwise - assuming Rjensen still wishes to insist here. I have already tried to diffuse the situation and if I have offended Rjensen, I am genuinely sorry. I am aware of Rjensen excellent contributions elsewhere and am sorry that (s)he feels this way here. Brigade Piron (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Falk approached me & explicitly asked my opinions and I answered him. I again find there's not much use arguing with Piron; he fights rather more tenaciously than the French did in 1940. 1) he is all mixed up about the massacres of black prisoners (about 1000 POWs were killed by the Germans) --today he mixes up 120,000 colonial French soldiers (half of them Algerians) and the subset 60,000 black colonial French soldiers. Since he thinks there is a mystery he erases everying in violation of WSiki rules to include all serious viewpoints 2) he keeps saying "just copied and pasted The text you insisted on adding was just copied and pasted and, if you'll excuse me, dumped into the new article." -- he is referring to text I researched, sourced & wrote in Jan 2013 & which he arbitrarily erased with no discussion whatsoever. 3) I think many of his edits weakened the contents of the article, especially by arbitrarily rejecting scholarly perspectives on race & gender which in my opinion he does not understand. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I gave a pretty long answer - not too long, hopefully. I hope it can help. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your excellent comment! It really describes that complex situation in a clear and understandable way. I support a split of the article - in principle. It should be done per wp:spinoff and wp:contentfork when the article has matured enough. Considering that French Liberation Army is a red link (I discovered that when I wanted to add Armée française de la Libération to template:campaignbox Free French), we're unfortunately a long way from there :( . The 1940-1945 military history could be covered in either Free French Forces or French Liberation Army with one redirecting to the other. I'd prefer the latter since a) it's more comprehensive b) a title less easy to confuse with Free France c) counters bias in the tendency to ignore French military history in 1944-45. Btw, do you know exactly when the US stopped recognise Vichy? ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I could check the exact date, but Vichy broke off its diplomatic relations with the US after operation Torch, when the Allies invaded French North Africa. Afterwards, the US first backed Darlan, then dealed with Giraud's administration (they had been sponsoring Giraud, who was seen as more manageable than de Gaulle) in Algiers, while the British reluctantly backed de Gaulle. The situation in French North Africa remained quite messy until June 1943 and the establishment of the Commitee of National liberation (merger of Giraud and de Gaulle's administrations) so the Allies could have one unified French co-belligerent. Still, de Gaulle's administration was not recognized as a proper government until after D-Day, because the status of France was so uncertain that the Allies were not quite positive about what they should do with the country (see the AMGOT project for France).

As for the name of the armed forces, Free French Forces should definitely be used, at least when referring to 1940-43 period, quite simply because that was the official name of the London-based troops.

After June 1943, they were merged with the African troops. Free French Forces remained in colloquial use, either to refer to the French allied troops as a whole (especially for English speakers) or to refer to the earliest de Gaulle partisans, who still liked to call themselves "Free French" (there was a bit of a rivalry between the earliest de Gaulle troops and the ones who served Vichy until 1942 and joined after Torch : the former tended to distrust the latter, at least at the beginning. Interestingly, a decree established that only the Free French Forces who had joined before Torch could be considered members or the "resistance", even though the African-based troops who joined after Torch had proved extremely useful in the Allied campaigns. People like Alphonse Juin received their due medals and honours, but were not officially considered "resistants".)

I'm not quite sure, but I'm under the impression that "Armée française de la libération" (French Army of Liberation might actually be a more accurate translation than "French Liberation Army") was actually an unofficial name for the unified allied French forces, and that their official name was just "French Army". I'd have to check that, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, FLA was just something I slapped to have a redlink. The most faithful translation would be French army of the Liberation or French Army of the Liberation. Capitalised if it is indeed their official name, lowercase otherwise. Totally agree that FFF are the most well-known. However that doesn't mean there necessary there must be an article; Londres (French WWII exile government) doesn't have to exist, and should redirect to Free France should someone create it, despite "Londres" being widely used as a metonym for the exile government(s). The FFF are a part of the FAL, since it was their merger with the Africa army that created it. Theoretically, FAL could afterwards be split per wp:summary style if and when it became large enough, but until then it is sufficient that the lede clearly explains the article is about all free french forces 1940-1945 per wp:lede, with a wp:hatnote saying "Free French Forces redirect here" if necessary. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The French wikipedia has article for the successive incarnations of the Free French London "government" : 1, 2 (i.e. the two successive official names of "Londres") but these articles have remained stubs. I'd say that for now a "Free France" article could be enough for now.

As for having separate pages for "Free France" and "Free French Forces", that would be logical, much like the Polish Armed Forces in the West and the Polish governement-in-exile, but we might also wait for the article to be "large enough". I definitely think that, at least in the long term, we should try to have two different pages, though.Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now I must ask, what do you think of the right mess that is France WWII articles? See France during World War II (talk page), Military history of France during World War II (talk page), Talk:Zone occupée, and Talk:German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II#Requested_move for examples. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ouch ! I'll try to have a look later this week. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I guess you won't be surprised by my opinion, but France during World War II is, of course, pretty dismal. The subject would deserves an article as developed as History of Poland (1939–45), as France's situation was almost as complex as Poland's, even though it was admittedly far less tragic. Military history of France during World War II is kind of better, although for now it's like the "skeleton" of an article (at least it has what I might call a "bone structure"). The plan might need to be revised, though (a more chronological approach might help, but article structure is not my forte), and some title sections need to be changed : for example, "French State Army (1940–1944)" is misleading, as Vichy had no military after late 1942 (unless you count the army in French Indochina, which was thousand of miles away) and the French Militia only counted as a political/paramilitary force, never as a regular "army". The "French Gestapo" shouldn't be counted in the military, either : although its bosses were technically SS, these guys were German auxiliaries (not to mention that, for the most part, they were actually professional criminals and not soldiers). As for the Military administration, I agree that wikipedia needs a general article about the German occupation (the French version has fr:Occupation de la France par l'Allemagne, although it's not as good as it should be). Also, the coexistence of Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France and German military administration in occupied France during World War II leads to a rather messy situation. I may have looked too quickly at the pages, but one wonders about the subject's overlapping. Did the Military administration of Belgium and Northern France become the Military administration of Belgium and France after the "zone libre" was occupied ? (if so, shouldn't we have juste one page ?) The articles should give a direct and simple answer to that.

I'm sorry I don't have time to do much, but if you want to work on these articles, I might help you out on some details, if you like. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

First, any help at all would be very warmly appreciated, Jean-Jacques Georges! Your comments here alone are very helpful. About the occupation, no Belgium & N France continued to be a separate administration, it was even an ephemeral Reichskommissariat in sept-oct. 1944. Then regarding "WWII France" it is now some kind of freakish hybrid between a wp:dab and a wp:stub, but it does have some functionality for helping a reader orient themselves at least a little bit. The worst that could happen to it is if the bullet points were converted to sections, which is what has happened to "MHFWWII", where people create a ==Battle of Dakar== section, with a {{main|Battle of Dakar}} template, and last a perfunctory and redundant sentence like "The [[Battle of Dakar]] took place in September 1940.", that is if they bother at all with that and don't leave it completely empty. But it does have a lot of content, otherwise the solution would have been to simply burn it to the ground a long time ago.
So much content in fact, that it a monster at a 250k size, when guidelines say that article any much larger than 100k should be split. The size makes it also easy for errors and confusing statements to hide, and as you note that is particulartly true of Vichy army/German volunteers, with outright howlers such as SS Charlemagne being listed as a Vichy Army unit. So, I've been pondering on that, and it really falls into 3 naturally distinct parts: "military history of free france", "military history of occupied and vichy france" (including the resistance), and "military history of the IIIrd republic in WWII". I actually tested that in my sandbox a while ago, here's how it looks like, MHFF, MHOVF, MH3R, doing nothing else but deleting the intro and sections belonging in the other ones. I think MHFF and MM3R could be split-off right off with only some very minor clean-up and writing a new intro; MHVOF would need some more considerable rewriting, but this is anyway necessary regardless as we have constated. What do you say? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Duh ! I hadn't noticed that the French SS were listed as "Vichy" troops. Quite a "howler", indeed ! Even the Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism wasn't officially part of Vichy's army. As for the "Légion tricolore", if I'm not mistaken, it only existed on paper because the Germans weren't hot about the idea.

True about the Military administration, the French wiki even has a page fr:Administration militaire de la Belgique et du Nord de la France : I should have looked before asking. But what about the South of France ? Did they create a "Military administration of Southern France" or was it just merged into a larger military administration ? The German military administration in occupied France during World War II seems to say the latter : if so, the two articles should clearly explain how their subjects overlapped. There is, indeed, much to be done on those pages. I'll take a look at your sandbox in a few days. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The zone nord and the zone sud were two different occupation territories. I think the administration in the zone sud was nominally under the north's chain of command but did pretty much what they wanted (cf. Klaus Barbie). Contrary to the image of ruthless German efficiency they liked to project, Nazis had a predilection for byzantine bureaucracy and feudal infighting over office politics... ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I forgot many of the more important aspects of the occupation are covered most extensively in Vichy France, which until I cleaned it up somewhat totally conflated the "Vichy regime" (the government de jure in charge of France 1940-44, and de facto in the zone libre 1940-42) with "Vichy France" (the Axis satellite state that existed 1940-42). ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no actual difference that I know of between "Vichy France" and the "Vichy regime", unless by "Vichy France" one means "occupied France". At least, in French, there is none, whether you say "Régime de Vichy", "Gouvernement de Vichy", "France de Vichy" (less frequently used) or just "Vichy" (commonly used). "Vichy" is a colloquial name for the official government of occupied France, or sometimes the occupation period as a whole, but generally it's just the former and not the latter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just corrected a few glaring mistakes in Vichy France's introduction. English is not my first language, so the wording might be a little awkward. If you have time, feel free to correct me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

On 14 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baggböle, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Baggböleri", the Swedish derogatory term for deforestation, is named after Baggböle on the Ume River? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baggböle. 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) 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it seems we're having a little misunderstanding here. :) "Vichy France", if by that we mean the "Vichy regime", definitely ended in 1944, not 1942 (or 1945). I never saw a single source mentioning "1942" as its end date (see something as basic as the Larousse dictionary) : hence, it never had the military administration as a "successor state" (the German military administration, in Northern and/or Southern France, just coexisted and overlapped with Vichy). Nor was "Free France" its successor, unless you count the Liberation committee in Algiers (which was not "Free France" per se, anyway). Vichy's only successor "state" was the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

Granted, Vichy's autonomy was greatly reduced after the Southern zone was invaded, but it was still pretty much in existence, Pétain was still its Head of state, and its administration, police (not to mention things like the Militia, created in 1943) were very much functioning. "Vichy" also included the Northern zone occupied by the Germans in 1940-42 : its authority was more limited there, but despite the Germans' presence, Pétain was also considered the Head of state in the North, the French administration and police were functioning (recognizing Pétain's authority, even though they also had to obey to the Germans, etc).

So there is no other space or time limit for Vichy than 1940-44, even though it did go through several different phases and, by 1944, was reduced to little more than a Quisling regime (although even in the end had more clout than Quisling's Norway) with a growing fascist influence (although it never became a 100% fascist state like, say, Pavelic's Croatia). There is no exact official date for the end of Vichy, so we have to settle for 20 August, when Pétain was whisked away by the Germans. As for the Sigmaringen "administration", it was never really recognized as a real "government-in-exile", not even by the Germans who were not quite positive about what they should do with it. It vaguely tried to function like one, but Pétain - who actually felt insulted to have been evacuated - and Laval took no part in its activities. It was just, as its official name implies, a "Governmental commission", so 1945 is not right as an "end" date : we should just settle with the date of its de facto disappearance, which is 1944.

Hope that helps. :) cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't think we disagree with the facts, only which to choose as an arbitrary end, a decision foisted upon us by the infobox template. The narrative about Vichy should be one making clear its evolution and the gradual change in nature, from very much clearly being the de facto successor state of the IIIrd republic (regardless of the dubious legality of the transition), with sovereign control of territory, internationally recognised and trying to chart an awkward course between the Allies and the Axis.
From an International Relations' perspective, it had definitely more autonomy that Croatia or Slovakia, and the Laval government after 1942, that while not as much a puppet as Quisling's Norway or Nedic's Serbia, was more along the lines of run-of-the-mill occupied Belgium or occupied Denmark (perhaps especially comparable is the situation in the latter 1940-43, with a government not set up by the Nazis remaining in place). What would I like is the period to be indicated as "1940-1942 (1944)", to indicate that evolution, as both 42 and 44 alone are misleading, the first by ignoring the role the Vichy regime played in the occupation, and the second by ignoring the very sharp difference between that government and a country with its own independent control of territory, policies and armed forces, that ceased to exist then.
If it's not possible to avoiding one date without reference to the other, we should ask ourselves if wouldn't do a greater service to the readers by dispensing with it altogether. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

"1940-1942 (1944)" might be too complex for an infobox : "1940-1944" are widely accepted dates, whatever the complexities (and its situation was indeed to complex). The narrative must indeed explain all this, but if me try to cram all those nuances in the infobox, it might just be confusing to the reader.

BTW, I really do insist that Free France was never a successor state to Vichy France : if anything, we have to consider that, in 1944, "Free France" was the same thing as the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Having both in the infobox leads the reader to think that there were two rival "Free" administrations (which was the case in 1942-43 if we take the London/Algiers rivalry into account, but definitely not in 1944) As for the German military administration, it did not succeed Vichy either, unless on counts the territory that was still under German control after the liberation Paris (but then again, Vichy's functionaries were still in place, too). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

WP:NAVBOXES are not international instruments of diplomatic recognition, they are tools to help readers find their way among the various political entities that have existed in a certain geographical area in a certain historical period. "Successor state" should not be intrepeted in its internationally legal sense, as in "Russia is the successor state of the USSR", but simply as "political entity at least partially on the same territory that existed later".
I think I have found a way to come around the problem, by simply not choosing an end event and having the whole 42-44 period as end date. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I understand that the situation is a bit complex, but since the infoboxes are, as you say, "tools to help readers find their way", I think we should just have 1940-44 and keep it at that. All the other "former countries/states" infobox have start and end dates, and it would be confusing not to have one here. What I'd like to stress is that 1940 and 1944 are widely accepted, even in France, as "end" and "start" dates for Vichy, and even though 1942 is the date of an important event, it did not mark the end of Vichy in any way. I never saw anyone use a form like "1940-1942(44)".

If we are just talking about an entity that "existed in a certain geographical area in a certain historical period", then the situation is relatively simple : from 1940 to 1944, the "French State" ("Vichy France") was, de facto, the official government of 100% of mainland French territory (occupied or not : the Germans recognized its existence in Northern France and worked with its functionaries) and remained so until the liberation of France. It ceased to exist in 1944 because the Sigmaringen commission was never recognized as a proper government by anyone (except by Marcel Déat who deluded himself that he was still a "minister" and was the only commission member to call himself that way) and because even French Indochina, the last French colony still loyal to Vichy in 1944, recognized the Provisional Government's authority. Implying anything else in the infobox would be misleading or confusing to the reader. While the text must explain the subject and show its complexity, the infobox should stress the most basic facts, which are : government of France (North and South) from 1940 to 1944. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem with that is that it completely conflates the Vichy regime with Vichy France, the relatively independent entity in the zone libre that tried to stay neutral between the axis and the allies. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, they are exactly the same thing. The "Vichy regime" was the administration of mainland France from the start of the occupation to the liberation. I never saw any French source make a difference between "le régime de Vichy" and "la France de Vichy", unless by "France de Vichy" one means "France during the German occupation" (generally they just say "l'occupation" to refer to the time period, while "Vichy" refers explicitely to the regime).

While, of course, the context was different in the North from 1940 to 1942, the French government was the same in the North and in the South, and Vichy knew exactly what its functionaries were doing in the North. There were never two separate entities. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

By definition they can not be exactly the same, since Vichy had sovereign control in the free zone, but *not* in the occupied one. It was one and the same government that served two different territorial entities. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, making a distinction between "Vichy France" and "Vichy regime" would be needlessly confusing, and even look like "original research", as I never saw such a distinction anywhere. Having different pages for Vichy France and Vichy regime, for example, would make no sense at all. If I'm not mistaken, by "Vichy France", Anglosaxons generally mean the regime itself (and, in a broader sense, the regime's policies) ; Frenchmen definitely use the word in that sense, in the vast majority of cases. While the situations were different in the North and in the South in 1940-42, there still was one and only government in mainland France, so we should not confuse "Vichy France" (common name of the regime) with "occupied France" (general situation of the country, which included the free zone and the occupied zone). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Anglo-Saxons" (they're not not fond of being called that, especially Scots, Welsh and assorted Irish  ) are mainly used to hear "Vichy France" in the context of Mers el Kebir and the actions in Syria and Madagascar, and after the landings in North Africa, it's all "occupied France". That Vichy was the official government of occupied France is seen as a completely secondary detail.
Regarding "ceasing to exist" in the infobox, listing Vichy doesn't imply it ceased to exist, any more than Reichskommissariat Niederlande implies the kingdom of NL ceased to exist, only that *de facto control* passed from the Kingdom of NL to the reichskommisariat. If the IIIrd republic hadn't ceased to exist, but gone into exile and continued to fight, we would still list it as preceding (which is emphatically not the same as "predecessor state") the Militärverwaltung. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, then we should just mention "occupied France" when referring to the period as a whole, and "Vichy France" (or "Vichy government") when referring to the regime/administration. It's what sources do, and it makes perfect sense.

As for the "ceasing to exist/losing de facto control" matter, I'm afraid the nuance would be lost on many readers as far as infoboxes go. Also, talking about "de facto control" hides some complexities of the situation : Vichy's autonomy was indeed reduced, and it lost its army, but it was still pretty much in control of a lot of things, retained its police forces, created things like the French Militia to assist the Germans, etc. It was by no means reduced to an entirely passive role, and it was still officially regarded as an independent state by the Germans, even though its independence was more and more of a sham. The topic of Vichy's sovereignity (or lack thereof) is a relatively complex subject, and it did not brutally cease in 1942, even though it was de facto curtailed. The occupation of the free zone is widely regarded as the moment Pétain's regime lost whatever credibility it still had, but Vichy still purported to be a sovereign, neutral state. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit frustrating that we agree on the facts, but come to different views on how to present them. I fully agree that Vichy's sovereignty didn't completely vanish in 1942. In International Relations, the two basic principles for a state to be independent is 1) effective control of a territory 2) international recognition. Between 1940 and 1942, Vichy had both of these in the zone libre. Afterwards it has impeded and residual control in the occupied zones, as Germany's puppet. This a dramatic difference. What do you say of this edit[7], that doesn't single out (and there's our problem, being forced to choose, templates should not exercise editorial control) a particular event, clearly hints at a progressive and gradual end. Together with judicious editing of the "political status" field (I'm open to suggestions), I think it's possible to do justice to the situation without bowlderizing. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The main problem is that trying to cram too much of a complex situation into an infobox tends to result in misleading presentations. I have no problem with your edit regarding the status, but I still disagree with the end date, which should be 1944, period. Of course 1942 was important : but I never saw any historian saying that Vichy ended that year, in any sense of the word, since the government remained unchanged. And that's the point : if Pétain had quit after the invasion of the Southern zone, Vichy's memory and legacy probably would have been radically different. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm ok with 1944 as sole end date, as long as the political status field clearly refers to the change in status in 1942 and FF & militärverwaltung are listed following in control. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem about the status as you wrote it, as long as we stick to 1944. As I said, Vichy is widely considered to have ended that year, whatever its status and degree ot autonomy. "1942/1944" is too confusing, and "1940-1942" would make anyone in France go "Uh, what ?". :)

As for the Free French in control, that should be the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and nothing else. Listing that and the Free French would make them appear - at least to the casual reader - to be two different (or even rival !) organizations, which would make no sense. I still don't think the military administration should be listed as a successor administration : it was not, it just overlapped. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you go and check other boxes, you'll see that there are numerous examples of overlapping countries, especially in the case of civil wars and dissolution of empires. And, in the free zone, it didn't overlap, it followed. Free France should be included, because it's a central article in France WWII history, and GPRF is really a sub-article of it. I can understand your concern in the confusion in including both of them, in which case we should limit ourselves to FF and ditch the GPRF. Again, the finer points that GPRF was a successor state in a strict legal sense is the less important concern. That the GPRF was formally founded a couple of weeks before Vichy lost control of France is totally a detail. For practical purposes, it was Free France that took over, and in its article the details of the establishment of a provisional government are clearly laid out, and more informative in a WWII context than the GPRF article. Writing an encyclopedia is not merely about pointing to the theoretically correct article, but making sure information is as accessible as possible. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the free zone, the German military administration didn't exactly follow, since Vichy remained in power. While its power was effectively reduced, it still exercised a degree of authority, so it was not a purely nominal government.

I wouldn't agree in ditching the GPRF in favor of "Free France". While Free France is of course important, listing it as a "successor" state would pose a problem in that it kind of ceased to exist officially when the French Committee of National Liberation was formally founded. "Free" France remained more or less in colloquial use, but in 1944 it was the GPRF, period. If we are to take the de facto situation into account, we must also keep in mind that part of the French Committee of National Liberation, of the GPRF and, indeed, more than half of the French "Free" troops were composed of people and troops who had not been part of "Free France" (if by "Free France" we mean strictly de Gaulle's organization) as they had only joined after Torch. I think we should try to be as precise as possible, otherwise it wouldn't do justice to the complexity of the situation.

As for the official status of "Free France", you might like to read this page which lists all the official texts, decrees, etc. (read this about the CFLN and this about the GPRF) As you can tell, France's situation was even messier than Poland, and we should try to give an accurate idea of this istead of being too broad. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

BTW, it would be even more problematic to ditch the GPRF in that it remained in place until late 1946 and the implementation of the Fourth Republic's constitution, so it's not an unimportant detail, although "Free" France may ring more bells. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I have no major problems with your latest edits, but I still wonder a little about "Axis-aligned satellite and neutral state (1940–42), German-occupied puppet state (1942–44)". While it's a nice attempt to sum up a complicated situation, it may have two slight problems : first, Vichy was officially "neutral" until its very end, even though its "neutrality" had become completely ridiculous ; second, "German-occupied 1942–44" is kind of misleading, because it was already occupied (roughly half of it anyway) in 1940-42. Maybe it would be better to write something like "Puppet state of Nazi Germany 1942-44" ? Some may argue that in 1940 it was already a puppet state to some extent, though, but that's another matter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think "territories under military administration" and "northern France only 1940-44" makes it very clear it was partly occupied in 1940-42. Also, one should not make the mistake of considering the box in a vacuum. It should correspond closely to what is said in the wp:lede, as it is meant to complement it, and not convey information independently of it. As it is now, I think the lede hits all the important points (vichy government under german occupation, non-occupied zone until 1942), and matches the infobox quite well. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know, and I think the infobox has the merit of trying to sum up a complex situation, which is a thankless task (at least for an infobox). Still, I think that "German-occupied 1942-44" is kind of misleading, because it was already occupied in 1940-42, at least for half of its territory. And that's one of the points, because Vichy was actively collaborating before November 1942 : things like the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup took place before case Anton, with full knowledge and participation of the Vichy authorities, which, despite German presence, still had a lot of leverage in the occupied zone. In France, when we mention "the occupation", we generally mean 1940-44, not just half of the period (even though it only concerned half of the territory before 1942), so the "German-occupied" mention is a bit misleading, especially because it doubles with the mention of the "occupied territory" below. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted this edit see theTalk:Military Administration in France for an explanation. -- PBS (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

? Victor there's another band, two articles. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Victor, your reversion of @Jenks24 on this RM without prior consultation was inappropriate, and I have restored the close. You have two viable alternatives at this point. 1) Wait 6 months and if you feel another RM is warranted, list at that time. 2) Initiate a WP:Move Review discussion to contest @Jenks24 original close. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Amazon Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Respiration

Battle of Madagascar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malagasy

Franco-Prussian War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Third Republic

Przewalski's horse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Taxonomy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German military administration in occupied France during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battle of the Mediterranean page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply