Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 72

message: I would like to find out about the experience other had in making their own maps, and the best approach suggestions. I have visited the relevant area but there seems to be too much information that does not necessarily relate to military maps. As a side issue, can screen captures from GoogleMaps be used?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Google Maps material is not freely-licensed by default, so it can't be used on Wikipedia except to illustrate the software itself. Kirill 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to recall detailed military map standards available at the NATO web site. In terms of tools I've played with Map Maker, but no scalable vector graphic (SVG) output. I'm still searching for a good (simple!) general map creation tool. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  NATO APP-6 and APP-6A symbols as font character symbols here: http://www.mapsymbs.com/maphome.html —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm tinkering with mapping tools and can load available images/databases.  What do you need?  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day SEWilco. I have started a long term project of documenting Red Army operations during WWII. Ideally I would like to be able to have a map for each one with moderate to good level of detail. I estimate a need for the project of some 250 maps. The greatest challenge from my POV is the need for some topographic detail on some maps to illustrate the particular difficulty encountered by troops on either side in some particular operations. This means that the quality needs to be better then a blank map with the odd river and town. I will be able to provide Soviet, and in a more limited way, German maps as a guide, but they are not of high quality in terms of resolution by digital standards if you know what I mean. This would be for the long haul because Ideally it would be good to have a consistent style through the project.-- mrg3105mrg3105   22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So just loading and tiling the low-resolution maps won't be enough.  I'll have to check what topographic data is available for Europe-Russia/Kamchatka.  We should probably move this to WP:WPMAP so others with map awareness can comment.  Copy your above questions over there.  -- SEWilco (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will have a look to find the appropriate discussion page to repost to-- mrg3105mrg3105   23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with creating maps 

message: The article, and some related ones, have had some problems with various partisans in the past. There's been some good work done on it, but the main article is really not a good read. Deserves some attention from someone who's willing to take on a certain amount of trouble. John Nevard (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for info. Trav (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iran-Iraq War]] article might interest someone 

message: Hi. In looking at :Category:Military history of Belgium during World War II it appears that there is no lead article for this. Belgium was a key state in the beginning of the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Belgium during World War II it would fill an important gap. There are many good and reliable sources for this topic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: Military history of Belgium during World War II 

message: Hi again. Looking at :Category:Military history of Lithuania during World War II, there is no lead article for this. Lithuania was a key battleground state during the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Lithuania during World War II it would help. There are good and reliable sources for this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: Military history of Lithuania during World War II 

message: Hi again. The Military history of the Philippines during World War II article is very sketchy and on its page there is a red link for an article about the Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945) that is still needed. Anyone with and interest or expertise in that topic is welcome to start writing it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945)  

message: Hi guys, I hope this is the right place for this. After an edit was reverted here a debate ensued on the template's talk page here. I'd really appreciate it if a couple of people from the project could take a few minutes of their time to read through it and give an opinion, so we can reach a consensus, cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented there. Kirill 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help forming a consenus, regarding civil war in Afghanistan please 

message: Does anyone know when the railways were first used for moving troops? Source would also be good :o) You can add to Military railways-- mrg3105mrg3105   00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were certainly used during the Crimean War (); whether there's anything earlier than that, I'm not sure. Kirill 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, darn.  That was before the Great Locomotive Chase.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm stumped! 

message: Hi guys, I just thought I should let you know I'm on the fence with this one. Basically a user at the Iran-Iraq War article feels the USA should be listed as a combatant, and a bit of an edit war has ensued between 2 users with a heated debate on the talk page here.
No I've looked up the Military History Project policy here and it states that "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."
I've boiled it down to a "for" and "against" argument such as;
For: US forces engaged in actually fighting with Iranian forces (e.g. Operation Praying Mantis)
Against: This stands more to confuse reader understanding than improve it 1. This was an 8 year war, the U.S military became involved only at the end, their appearence in the combatant list could lead readers to believe that U.S forces were involved from day one 2. To add the USA because they supported Iraq, would mean you would have to add another 20 countries (see Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990), or you'd be discriminating against the USA.
It would be great if some of you guys could come along, take a few moments to read the talk page and give an opinion. I think a consensus would really cool down the heated debate between these 2 users, cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: This issue has now gone to an RFC, if you would like to comment here's the link. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Consensus: Should the USA be listed as combatant in the Iran-Iraq War?

message: Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:
* Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1
Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for [[Blackwater Worldwide]], please help! 

message: The featured article Campaign history of the Roman military‎ has been edited by an IP editor several times since he has some fixed ideas what it should look like. I don't think he improved the article and I think his edits are incorrect. All in all, I don't want to be the only jerk reverting his stuff. Feel free to take a look. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved the issue by now. I'm a real jerk. Cheers Wandalstouring (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: Cross-posting this here, as this Wikiproject helps to oversee military-related topics:
Talk:Waterboarding#RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?
Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on [[Talk:Waterboarding]] 

message: I've nominated Shibumi2 to become an administrator here. He has been working hard for a year, getting Wikipedia articles on Japanese Navy ships to conform to WP:MILHIST standards. Please join me in supporting his nomination. Thank you! Neutral Good (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, asking for input is fine, but please don't ask people to comment in a particular way. Kirill 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA for Shibumi2

message: As many of you contributed to the AfD (And I'm lazy and posting this to talk pages would be a total pain) just to let you guys know I proposed that it be merged into Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Narson (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James 'Jamie' Smith 

message: I'm having a problem getting the importance of using Reliable sources over government propoganda across to an editor who ought to know better, and would rather not fight this battle on my own. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Indian Navy for the full explanation. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look over it in a minute. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go-round with the same user months ago, as he could not realise that the Indian Navy was not likely to be an FA (he's tried about four times) if only website sources were used. Since then he's added a list of books, but not used anything from them. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Navy

message: Please see Talk:Colonel#Red links and comment whether this discussion must be generalized/unified for all military ranks. `'Míkka>t 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military rank categories 

message: I'll happily move this discussion to a task force specific page, but I wanted to get broad advice. Om one of the CIA articles I have drafted, the first response was not discussion, but a call for deletion (see CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation)
Intelligence seems to be a very hot button for some Wikipedians. Some of you will remember that within a very few minutes of putting up the first draft of the article on human source recruiting, an admin speedily deleted it with no discussion. After a AfD discussion, it was put back.  
As many of you know, the CIA article had gotten extremely long, and roughly half its content was devoted to alleged (and real) covert action, but rarely with sourcing. A great number of posts about "Operation Gladio" and police training, it developed, came (unsourced) from two books alone. 
Now, my approach may be wrong, but I'd rather have too much sourced and coherent prose (the words of the person who wants it deleted), and cut back based on discussion, than immediately call for deletion. As the saying goes, once is random, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action, a saying rather appropriate for this Project. :-)  We are now at the coincidence level of two delete-rather-than-discuss events. 
How should this apparently controversial area be approached, or is it simply something that cannot be presented in NPOV, and multiple edits, due to emotion about it? 
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force#Intelligence task force item. Kirill 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence task force item 

message: Not within our coverage, but would really appreciate some extra eyes on this FAC nomination. user:Miyokan, in my view, is not permitting any negative commentary on the country's current state and recent past, for example, in the military sphere, deleting sourced material on conscription problems, dedovschina etc. Examples of problems and attempts to discuss controversial topics can be found on Miyokan's talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, but I just removed a number of items from the CIA Arms Control/Proliferation article, to keep it focused more on the CIA process than the findings. Some of the things I removed (although I kept a copy) included the deterioration of ballistic missiles, both land and submarine. There's a little bit in Nuclear MASINT on the sad state of some of the nuclear-powered ships for which they can't afford maintenance, and are rapidly becoming hazardous. (In a way, I hate to see that. Soviet ships tended to be beautiful). Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The military section does seem to be putting things in the best possible light ("Russia ranks at or near the top of many metrics of military power"). While Russia unquestionably has lots of hardware, much or it is outdated and the actual effectiveness of much of the military is pretty low. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC: [[Russia]]

message: (Cross-posting to wikiproject cryptography, wikiproject computer science, and Wikiproject military history) 
Over my Christmas vacation, I happened to get out to the National Cryptologic Museum at the NSA. I photographed basically everything in the musuem, (including all the nameplates so that I could later identify the photographs). There's a *LOT* of neat stuff there.  
I've uploaded them to commons, and now I need help insterting them into articles and whatnot. You can find the gallery at User:Raul654/favpics/National Cryptologic Museum. Please insert captions into the gallery (red links for any nonexistent articles) and insert the pictures into relevant articles. Raul654 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a request: Choctaw Nation Medal of Valour --> can someone turn this red link blue? (I have a picture of one in the above gallery) 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a damn thing about that medal, other than incidental mention on rootsweb—frustrating! Its design is unfamiliar, although the text "for service in defense of our land and people" is apparently used by the Navajo Nation Service Medal . The medal resembles this unofficial Navajo flag design, which is said to be based on "a 1980 medallion", but I can't find anything on that either. I would presume the medal to be some sort of recognition for code talkers, but as far as I can tell, the non-Navajo code talkers have not received an official medal, although efforts are underway . Baffling. Maralia (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Have pics, need help

message: Where do astronauts fall in terms of scope? Going through the assessment drive, I'm running across astronauts, whose notability isn't strictly military but whose military background is relatively significant. Thoughts? UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been touched on before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Space: The final (tagging) frontier?, FWIW. Kirill 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronauts 

message: Hey. This article is part of an effort to get a year article to FA status. It has a lot of medieval military history information that needs looking over. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Wrad (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1345]] 

message: This probably might not be the ideal place to ask this question - but I'll ask anyway - what's the difference between a DAB (Disambiguation) and a NA found on the tags? Because lots of tags under the category of "unassessed" have been marked with NA, and some have DAB's on it. Thanks Fattyjwoods (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Marking disambiguation pages above; basically, DAB was recently introduced, and NA was deprecated for article-space pages as a consequence. Kirill 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this question of mine at the drive's talk page. I was confused too. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAB & NA 

message: Shouldn't units be dab'd "4h UK Infantry", per convention, rather than "4h Infantry (UK)"?  Trekphiler (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless that's the actual name; see WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME.  Disambiguation, Wikipedia-wide, is generally parenthetical; we take the ambiguous name ("X") and add a disambiguator ("X (Y)").  In most cases, a unit's name doesn't actually include the country name; in other words, the unit is actually the "4th Infantry" rather than the "4th UK Infantry".  (There are, of course, exceptions, e.g. the Royal Canadian Regiment, etc.) Kirill 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that an odd approach, but...sayonara.  Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (BTW, Happy New Year y'all.) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a name?

message: Maybe it's too soon, but I just created a couple of pages & I'm wondering how (if) I can direct/redirect from less-specific names. I searched "McDonnell Gargoyle" & came up dry (tho it's on the Gargoyle dab page). Suggestions? Or just wait awhile?  Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The search function uses a cached version of the database, if I recall correctly; new pages don't show up in the results for a while.  Creating redirects from the more common alternative names would probably help in any case, though. Kirill 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Search me

message: Hi, i have a problem with the Infobox Military-template. It is used on Military of Denmark and information about the armed forces commander is entered but now showing on the page and i really can't figure out why :(. Could anybody please have a look at this and tell me what i'm missing? K.R. Hebster (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just fixed it. --RenniePet (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - i didn't consider to check the template for missing lines. I just thought it was me who was doing something wrong. And yes - the Queen is actually formally the Commander in Chief (old stuff that nobody has removed from the danish constitution for some odd reason that i don't know of) though it is administered by the danish primeminister and as long as she doesn't interfere i don't think anyone will change things... Thanks for your fix :) K R Hebster (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox military defect?

message: We currently have a small backlog of deprecated infoboxes that need to be converted to their current equivalents.  I've set up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion which provides details on how to convert each template; it's mostly simple—but repetetive—work.  If anyone is feeling bored and would like to do a bit of WikiGnoming, any assistance with carrying out these conversions would be appreciated. Kirill 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with infobox conversion 

message: :1. Bedford — 7,600
:2. TomStar81 — 5,500
:3. Parsival74 — 5,200
:4. FayssalF — 3,500
:5. Roger Davies — 3,000
:6. Ouro — 2600
:7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
:8. Cromdog — 2,200
:9. BrokenSphere — 2000
:9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
:9. Maralia — 2,000
:12. MBK004 — 1,340
:13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
:14. Sniperz11 — 1100
:15. Burzmali — 1000
:15. Cplakidas — 1000
:15. Gimme danger — 1000
:15. Raoulduke471000
:15. TicketMan — 1000
:15. Welsh — 1000
:15. Blnguyen — 1000
Slightly under 68,000 articles tagged. The Wikis and congratulations go to Gold winner Bedford; Silver winner TomStar81; and Bronze winner Parsival74.
The drive is officially closed now but existing participants can continue tagging if they wish with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. See here.
We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a workshop here. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants 
alike are both very welcome and appreciated :)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag & Assess 2007 - Final Top Twenty 

message: The peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident]] now open 

message: The peer review for News media and the Vietnam War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[News media and the Vietnam War]] now open 

message: There is a FAC for this article now open, following a peer review and a successful A-Class review. Comments appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC for [[George Jones (RAAF officer)]]

message: The peer review for Special reconnaissance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Special reconnaissance]] now open 

message: The peer review for United States Naval Special Warfare Command is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[United States Naval Special Warfare Command]] now open 

message: The peer review for United States Navy SEALs is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[United States Navy SEALs]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident]] now open 

message: I just stumbled across American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead in the list of new articles. While this is a valid topic for an article (there can be no doubt that it happened, and wasn't infrequent in some areas/units), I've got an uncomfortable feeling that the article itself is a coatrack article. The article is basically an essay which draws on vague reports of incidents where Japanese soldiers' bodies were mutilated to strongly push an argument that US troops were brutal in 20th century wars in the Pacific and were routinely guilty of war crimes against dead Japanese soldiers. 
Moreover, some of the claims in the article seem highly questionable, despite them being cited. As some examples: "Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated" (this is cited, but the reference is a book review and it runs against everything I've ever read on the Pacific War - which is a lot. Given the tropical climate Allied troops generally didn't want to go anywhere near dead Japanese and bodies were swiftly disposed of), "In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). "The US has a long history of viewing “colored races” such as Asians and American Indians as inferior, often leading to murderous violence" (cited, but clearly POV and it seems to suggest that the US military has the same ethical standards as the mongol hordes). There's also a quote from John Steinbeck which seems to be being used entirely out of context - I think that he only reported from Europe during the war. 
Thoughts? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Start by throughing maintence tags on the page, and put {cn} tags on suspicous statements. I agree that this is valid topic for an article, but the article needs a lot of help if it is going to stay here. If no big improvements to the article materialize in a month or so I would consider an afd for it, although thats just me. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd looking new article

message: Does anyone know where I can find reliable information on USN radars? I am looking for navigational stuff because FTC Garry commented that most of the fire control stuff is still classified. Any help on the matter would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a google search and this seems to be a good source of info.--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And this appears to be an even better source.--Phoenix-wiki 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Radar Information

message: Everything is currently in :Category:Soviet-German War, with two subcategories, :Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and :Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War. I suggest getting rid of everything except :Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, and making that the top level category. If needed we could make a :Category:Military units and formations of the USSR during World War II and :Category:Military units and formations of Germany during World War II instead of that other one.--Phoenix-wiki 13:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles. Kirill 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles 

message: Matt Sanchez is a milblogger, conservative columnist, and a Marine reservist. He also appeared in gay porn (in something of a previous life).  If / when someone from this project has a bit of time, could the article be reviewed from a military perspective? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for now as a request for arbitration has been filed today. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Sanchez 

message: The peer review for Franco-Prussian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Franco-Prussian War]] now open 

message: An RFC in an article supported by this project has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name]]

message: Please keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious account  

message: Does anyone see the code in the MACV-SOG article that makes the top header blue? The color is not really following the MoS. --MoRsE (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean; which header?  Usually, a blue header means that something is a link when it shouldn't be; but I don't see anything like that in the article. Kirill 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that is strange, it is showing up blue in my Firefox browser, but not in IE.  Further, when I mark the header, you can see that the text is overlapping. To illustrate the point: --MoRsE (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's bizarre.  Are you sure it's not something in your CSS?  Does this or this article have the same problem? Kirill 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, now it took a turn for the stranger, the first one is blue and the second one green. My .css is untouched, and I did some changes in my .js page, but it shouldn't affect this. ??? ;-| --MoRsE (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense.  I think the .js script is generating those assessment buttons is probably also changing the color to match the current assessment level; you'd need to ask its author to make sure, though. Kirill 00:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding the code