This user may have left Wikipedia. Folks at 137 has not edited Wikipedia since 20 November 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi, Folks at 137, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• To post an image try Wikipedia:Image tutorial, but remember to look out for copyright violations
• Stay away from common mistakes
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
• Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!
• Oh, and don't forget to tell something about yourself on your user page!

Good luck! Renata3 21:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:Drive to the Siegfried Line and discuss you ideas there before changing Rhineland Campaign from a redirect --Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits to a page are not lost just hidden. One can always retrieve a version throught the history tab. Then edit the old version, cut and past it to another place, or save it on-top of the current version. If someone then does that to your retrieved version and resaves the last version it is called a reverse. If you then do the same back it is called "an edit war" and becomes a waste of time for everyone who joins in. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response on the discussion page. I'll be the first to admit it's very difficult to write anything neutral about Monty. But the challenge shouldn't stop us. I appreciate the dialogue. DMorpheus 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations."

This is a pretty broad statement that is bound to generate discussion, but its not really necessary to the article anyway, IMO.

"Montgomery bitterly resented this change, even though it had been agreed before the D-Day invasion, and it probably influenced his subsequent behaviour and decisions"

While I think it’s true that he resented the change (who wouldn’t? He was human) the second part of the sentence is speculation. I suggest putting a period after the word 'invasion'.

"Allied victory - if recovery from an avoidable defeat can be so described - at the Battle of the Bulge"

This is definitely POV and an inaccurate swipe at the US Army. Again though, even if you disagree, it's not necessary to the article.

"Monty supported his American formations; the Army commanders Hodges and Simpson were glad for this. The battlefront was reorganised, reinforced and supplied. The three generals then waited for the Germans to exhaust themselves - an approach shared by Patton who believed that the more the Germans advanced, the more they would eventually lose. This waiting for the right moment did not appeal to Bradley or Hodges, however"

Bradley and Patton manifestly did NOT share the same approach as Montgomery. Patton agreed that the Germans should be allowed to advance – he famously argued that they should be allowed to go all the way to Paris – but did *not* agree that the Allies should wait to counterattack. He gave warning orders to his staff as early as Dec 17 to prepare a counterattack into the flank of the german penetration. That is why he was able to attack with three divisions on Dec 19 and relieve Bastogne on Dec 25. He didn't wait for the Germans to exhaust themselves at all. Bradlye fully and strongly supported this approach, if for no other reason than to redeem himself to Eisenhower.

Montgomery *was* supportive of the US commanders and his order to evacuate St Vith was correct. It probably saved elements of two US Divisions. But his approach of waiting until the German advance slowed was very different from the approach taken by 12th US Army group. It was the press conference that really generated the anger, much more than anything he actually did operationally.

Just noticed the reference to the clearing of the Scheldt estuary and the effects this had. I am not sure if you mean to say that the failure to clear the Scheldt prevented the use of Antwerp (which it did) or Rotterdam (not sure how it could have, since Rotterdam is well north-east of the Scheldt). DMorpheus 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember, we have a habit of lying to tourists :)

Theres not a chance a police officer could get past booking one pub for late night opening before the other 6 would be warned and would be closed within minutes; additionally they'd have trouble getting onto the island without the ferry company telling all the pubs; and the Irish Times suffers the terrible "Arranmore Merge" problem where what happens on Arranmore and Inishmore turns into one island,. The football team was started after the car ferry service started, and every opposition team (+ half of the home team) come in by ferry for every home match - and considering the way the approach to the island by sea is, you'd notice you were being brought around the long way very, very quickly if you were being brought in by normal boat.

You should note that the reference to the police was removed by my brother, not me - two different accounts in the history there.

As goes "British Isles", nearly everyone from the island living on the island of Ireland is back there every second weekend anyway, so its hard for any form of seperate diaspora to be built up. Its also a term I've found to be mainly used in a derogatory sense (along with "Éire" or "erse" when refering to the country or the language), so its almost instinctive to try and find an alternative if one is suitable.

However, you've now given me a reason to write something on Beaver Island (Lake Michigan), where about half the residents claim some links to Arranmore, as well as the communities in south Scotland - for instance Lockerbie has a sizable ex-Arranmore population, two of which died on-ground in the bombings. --Kiand 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It goes from lying to craic after the tourist has bought the storyteller about two pints while listening enthralled, before then its just pure lies ;) --Kiand 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the page for foxwoods casino the main picture should be changed to this.. - http://www.thebbmc.com/images/foxwoods.jpg - or something nicer!

You may use my format for the side bar and that is a good idea to change ship name to Italics, will be changed when i have changed all side bar formats in the dido and bellona classes.

Thanks --MiniEntente 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, my changes were more in the personal preference department than a matter of correctness, although I think "southeast" is preferred around here. Feel free to revert if you prefer the original spellings. No worries --Cam 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the battleship Tirpitz article, you claimed that Tirpitz did not have air cover because of poor coordination between Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.

Tirpitz was covered by fighter unit led by fighter ace Heinrich Ehrler. When the attack started the leading bomber formation headed toward German base nearby, fooling Ehrler into believing that the British were going to bomb the base and not Tirpitz. When it became clear that it was diversion it was too late, Tirpitz had been sunk. The German fighters attacked the British bombers and shot few down before they had to return to base.

That is what the book Kampf und Untergang Der Kriegsmarine says.

http://www.sammlerpoint.de/geschichte/g2163.jpg

Kurt.

Late reply to your message at Talk:German cruiser Admiral Hipper. According to the Wikipedia naming conventions:

Don't make up a ship prefix for a navy that didn't use one. Thus:

• German battleship Bismarck (not "DKM Bismarck") κаллэмакс 08:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(in reply to User_talk:Kallemax#Kriegsmarine_ship_prefix)
Hey, no offence intended, I just copy-pasted the text from here. κаллэмакс 09:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NI, I haven't heard of anything like this. It is possible that Peruvians would have destroyed an U-boat, but warship....Only German warships that could reach Peru without being resupplied were Panzerschiffe's, and none was sunk in Peruvian waters.

I don't have any information. If I come across anything I'll let you know. But you have tickled my curiosity so if you find anything I'd appreciate it if you would let me know. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't dispute your statement that "NFLD forces (59 Heavy Regiment & 166 Field Artillery Regiment) were part of the British Army, not Canada's army". However, please see http://worldatwar.net/timeline/newfoundland/19-49.html where, for June 14 1940, it states: "Canadian request to station ground troops at Newfoundland Airport, Gander and the seaplane base at Botwood granted. Subsequent agreements provide for, recruitment of Newfoundlanders into the Canadian services, Canadian command of the Newfoundland Militia and formation of a joint coastal defense battery." I think that the 57th, 59th and 166th (Newfoundland) Artillery Regiments were formed in the UK from Newfoundland volunteers already in British regiments (eg, 71 (West Riding) Field Regt). This might have accounted for a different status to the Newfoundland Militia and other units raised at home. Folks at 137 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess we are arguing about different things. The Defense of Newfoundland and the Home guard of the Newfoundland Militia were under Canadain command, but overseas units fighting in the war were under the command of the British Army. There were native Newfoundlanders who signed up in St. John's for the 57th, and 59th regiments. Perhaps the WWII page should indicate both commands. 66.57.87.50 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are differences between the 1946 Official listed casualties and the current Commonwealth War Graves Commission Report- Do you have any idea why the current numbers are higher than the 1946 balances? Also do you know of a source for data on the UK Colonies casualties?--Woogie10w 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks at 137! I saw you reverted my last edits of Battle of France. May I inquire as to the reason why? Greetings, --MWAK 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That explains it all :o). Thank you for your effort — especially in guarding against vandalism!--MWAK 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You gave me a warning. Not sure what happened. I thought I was editing a page - then it went blank, perhaps because I'd left it active for too long(?). If you check my own history and the history of the page in question (which I've done much work on), I hope you'll accept that I did a "whoopsie", at worst, not deliberate vandalism. If so, I'd appreciate an "innocent" verdict - good name, and all that. Folks at 137 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit that the bot reverted you on is [1] not sure why it happened but the page was uploaded blank to Wikipedia, the bot caught it as blanking and reverted to the last editor not the last edit. I can't really change edit summaries, but thats what happened -- Tawker 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, you do know that Tawkerbot2 is a bot, right? -- Tawker 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essentially what happens with a revert (admin / bot (which is a computer program in short) / or otherwise) is the person reverts to the last editor, not the editor who "vandalised" (although in your case it appeared to be not intentional, a technical glitch caused it to blank the page. I understand you have concerns about the auto bot revert (within 10 seconds I believe it's working at) - you are the second user to suggest it, the thought has crossed my mind but part of the intent of the bot is to discourage vandals by showing them that if they vandalize it will be reverted rapidly every time, if I introduced a delay it might lose some of the deterrent (and the deterrent seems to be working, vandalism has been down often.) Even if the bot didn't auto revert, chances are someone monitoring the anti vandal programs would have noticed the blanking (although it was accidental) and assumed it was vandalism and did the exact same the bot did, chances are it would have been reverted to the last edit before you anyways. -- Tawker 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date linking is for user preferences rather than collating significant dates. If I type "9 July" and don't link it with the double square brackets then it reads as "9 July". If I link it then it will read either "9 July" or "July 9" depending on "my preferences" (next to my watchlist) thus providing those either side of the Atlantic with a format they are familiar with.GraemeLeggett 08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I am wondering whether there is a set standard for linking naval articles (should HMS/USS/service numbers be included). More specifically, I am wondering if there is a prefered form to use for Soviet naval articles. Thanks in advance. Crocodilicus 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice edit today. DMorpheus 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wide info box just doesn't work. Perhaps several down the article but not a single "fat" table. GraemeLeggett 10:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, re your message, yep that was my only objection, sorry about that, don't know why it didn't work for me yesterday, tried a few times over the day before I removed it, but only got the page can not be found error message each time, works for me now though, I've reverted it back in now.Number36 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd probably leave it off; it's not particularly useful in this case. (Strictly speaking, the box guidelines specify that the countries involved should be given, in which case it would be an even less meaningful Germany v. Germany setup.) Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I was a bit bored today at work, so I created a Userbox for Hertfordshire based Wikipedians (and I'm still bored so I am messaging the 'Wikipedians in Hertfordshire' group about it). If you want to use it, it is ((user Hertfordshire)). Legis 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few comments; I am far from an expert on Bradley but I hope you find this helpful.

1. Since his most senior post was Chairman of the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff - equivalent to British CIGS I believe? Or is that just the Army?), and he was the first officer to hold this position, I think this should be mentioned in the intro.

2. He was assigned to the II Corps in North Africa before Patton arrived and before Fredendall was relieved, so strictly speaking he was not sent to Africa to serve under Patton. A minor wording change would take care of this.

3. II Corps was the major US formation under 7th Army in Sicily. Maybe a link to 7th Army would be approporiate, as well as a brief mention of the 'road' controversy that first pitted Montgomery against Patton and Bradley.

4. I believe he was known as the "G.I. General" not the "Soldiers' General". Ernie Pyle came up with that.

5. Isn't the Chambois pocket much better-known as the Falaise pocket? Bradley's decisions there are among his more controversial so that might bear some mention.

6. The original planning for Overlord had the US 12th Army Group going south of the ardennes. It was a later decision, pushed by Montgomery and endorsed by Ike, that led the US First Army north of and through the Ardennes, thus helping set the stage for the battle of the bulge.

7. Should be a link to US First Army as well as mention that it was the lead US formation in Normandy and one of the largest (if not the largest) US field armies ever.

8. Some mention of Bradley's colorful remarks about the Revolt of the Admirals might be in order, or perhaps a link to that article. Same with his comments re: Truman's firing of Macaurther, which he strongly endorsed.

9. I've never heard the racism charge at the end. Since this is quite an accusation it should be backed with some sources.

10. Maybe some mention of the OOB of the 12th Army group at various points? DMorpheus 15:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tirana view.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice you've contributed in the past to Names of European cities in different languages and its successor pages. There are proposals to delete these articles and the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages might interest you. AjaxSmack 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks!

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folks, I have put the following reply on my talk page; I have copied it here in case you have not put that page on your watchlist.

"You do yourself an injustice, Folks. We are all amateurs (so far as I know), and what I have seen of your work is well up to standard. Your recent edit to the Hipper-class, for example, was a significant improvement to the balance of the article. As for "grunt" work, there will be enough of that to see out the millenium. I would like to see this task force succeed, and this will be more likely if you are on board. Regards, John Moore 309 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry about adding that tag, the tag I wanted to add was a "fix the page format" one to make the page a little bit more compact, but I couldn't remember it, I've now fixed it. --James Bond 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be strange if a Commonwealth fleet based in Sydney did not include RAN ships, no? :-) The list of ships in the article is far from exhaustive and the RAN effort included destroyers and smaller vessels. Grant65 | Talk 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to have a comprehensive list of ships, but this has proved difficult, at least from the sources at my fingertips. However, I hope this puts your mind at rest:

The RAN was initially represented by the destroyers HMA Ships QUICKMATCH and QUIBERON as well as a number of corvettes. Later the destroyers HMA Ships NAPIER, NORMAN, NIZAM and NEPAL joined. All of these vessels had previously served in the Indian Ocean with the British Eastern Fleet. The destroyers had taken part in attacks on Japanese oil installations in Sumatra and the N Class vessels had supported the Army [sic; should be Allied armies] in Burma. The corvette HMAS LAUNCESTON had sunk the submarine RO 110 off Vizagapatam. The destroyers saw service in support of the Okinawa operations in April while the corvettes formed two minesweeping flotillas.[2]

In other words, there were no Australian ships of cruiser class or above in the BPF. See also: Supplement to the London Gazette of Tuesday, the 1st of June, 1948 "The Contribution of the British Pacific Fleet to the Assault on Okinawa, 1945." (Published June 2, 1948.) Cheers Grant65 | Talk 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curious, it looks fine on my monitor... Esaborio 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use the Explorer. And yes, there is a slight difference between the two flags. You can see for yourself at [3]. Esaborio 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, quite messy. (And I'm really not the right person to comment here, neither having read Beevor nor posessing any real knowledge of the period.)

I would suggest, however, that more precise citation may help resolve the issue. If you can footnote the contentious points with page numbers from the sources, the discussion turns to the interpretation of specific points, which tends to be more limited than general fights over concepts. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at de:AG Weser, 11th sentence:

Nach dem Weltkrieg wurde die sogenannte Werften-Konzentration durchgeführt, die die AG Weser unter anderem mit acht anderen Werften zur Deutschen Schiffs- und Maschinenbau Aktiengesellschaft (DeSchiMAG) zusammenfasste.

German capitalizes nouns, but not other words (even in titles), therefore abbreveations follow this style. Other examples are GmbH and BAföG. Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG becomes DeSchiMAG in this way.

--° 11:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be a decision between the correct form and the most used form. I favor the correct form.

-- ° 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there only was a Web-site by DeSchiMAG themselves. I am pretty sure the would had opted for DeSchiMAG or else for DESCHIMAG. Even deschimag would be an option (if the had some hip PR guys). Only "Deschimag" (even so many times used by others) is very unlikely. But it can be found in Wikipedia: "Deschimag" exists as redirect. The question is: Add another redirect for DESCHIMAG, or not? I'm not sure about that.

-- ° 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, it was always meant to include all of them. I can't recall why that particular wording was used, but it's been there since the beginning; in any case, I've changed it to the standard form now. Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite honestly, I think you're being overly fussy here ;-) So long as the edits themselves are good, and the multiple commits are not truly excessive (think hundreds at a time), I don't really see any real reason to take any action regarding them. It's probably just a function of his being a newer editor; I suspect he'll outgrow the habit in time. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as an issue is not solved we keep discussing. Wandalstouring 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Folks! I am often banned here as I have to use a public server here in Saudi. It is so good to be unbanned for a while (and for some reason). I appreciate all your efforts with 'my' operation names. Sure, put the Kimono thing back in if you like. Paul, in Saudi 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Folks, do not sell yourself short. I consider us both not to be Geeks, but Uber-Geeks. Nice work on resetting those names into lower-case. I ran out of time. Paul, in Saudi 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you again but could you go to this page and tell me if you think it is 'not notable?' Seems like standard (if obscure) military history to me. I value your opinion. Paul, in Saudi 16:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now see the problem. I have no idea either how to do this. So I guess returning to the "indent" might be the best option for now. Considering how the image is used on over 3000 pages I don't feel like actually modifying it (even though it will always be on a white background) and certainly not like creating a "boredered" duplicate and linking that in (looks like a job for a lifetime). I will revert my edit to the Normandy page till I or someone else can think of a better solution.--Caranorn 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fear I may spend the rest of my days trying to heal this sick, twisted article. I invite you to join me in my quest. POV Problems? A Few. Since you are a Smart Guy can you tell me how to enter one of those nifty <<Citation Needed>> tags? Paul, in Saudi 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Paul, in Saudi 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is beyond hope. Well-meaning people who have no clue have taken it under the wing. It is very alarming indeed. How can I submit this thing to be rated? I am sure it would a very low score. Paul, in Saudi 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm a tad confused - I think you'll find that I corrected the incorrect spelling. That is, I changed material to materiel and not the reverse. Am I wrong? --Ggbroad 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, there is a separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), that other one is somewhat misleading so I've adjusted it accordingly. I too used to italicise all ship titles on WP, but got told off by someone else, even though most of the big names (e.g Whitely, Lenton, Conways) italicise class titles or put them in quotation marks, it seems this is not what WP policy is. Didn't mean to come across all school-teacherish on you! :) Emoscopes ^Talk 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree, it is particularly silly when you are talking about ship classes by letter-names only, without some sort of style on the letter it reads pretty badly. But getting stuff changed in the Mos? Not worth the effort, really... Emoscopes ^Talk 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, sure no problem. I wasn't aware of it, but i will change it. LOM

Hey, thanks for the heads up about gallery compatibility, I had no idea that it wasn't 100% supported. I'll go ahead and revert to the version with the images down the right hand side. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there; the article looks good so far, and I look forward to reading the complete item (my interest is more in Capital Ships in terms of wiki contributions). I do not think that anyone would now mark it for deletion, but if in future you have to leave an article at an early stage where deletion is a risk, then if you insert at the top the template ((underconstruction)) then it will, or should, be left alone.--Anthony.bradbury 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I would stipulate, the Japanese, with their almost complete lack (until late) of anti-submarine tasking, and to a lesser extent the Italian. I wish you the best of luck. If I can be of any factual help let me know; I have here a seriously extensive printed database.--Anthony.bradbury 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'm puzzled that you cancelled my edits changing Bruges to Brugge (pronounced Brooker). For the last 5 years I've lived in Flanders on and off, and it's a simple fact that I've never heard it called Bruges, neither will you see Bruges on a road sign anywhere within Belgium. It is also a fact that referring to Flanders (ie Flemish-speaking) towns by their French names is very irritating to local sensibilities. Calling Brugge "Bruges" makes as much sense as calling London "Londres"! downes51

Meh. It's not a very good B-Class, admittedly; but I would say that it still qualifies, based mostly on the amount of material present. (I'm not an expert on this particular topic by any means, though, so I don't really know how accurate it is. If you want, you can list the article at WP:MHA#Requests for assessment for another opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, ref your request for published sources substantiating claims for upgunning with 15-inch guns. See The German Navy 1939-45 pages 32-38, author: Cajus Becker a former German Navy intel officer. Published 1974, ISBN 1 85152 591 2. Also see my note at [4] George.Hutchinson 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I reacted exactly like you when I saw the Möwe class referred to as "destroyers". They should be called torpedoboats, that's what they've been called in all litterature I've read which has mentioned them. These ships were definitely not "Zerstörers". Manxruler 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to be of assistance. I did a little look around the internet on German language sites, including German Wikipedia, and the Möwe class is always reffered to as "torpedobooten". Keep up the good work! Manxruler 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Sorry, this is old news, but I just noticed this edit: [5]. The USN flag template already adds a white border to flags to highlight them against a dark background, so there's no need to put border| in front. Just wanted to save you some effort in case you're using the template in articles. TomTheHand 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks. You're doing some great work, especially on the List of World War II ships, but what was that stuff with Togo (HNoMS Otra) and Kamerun (HNoMS Rauma (1940-1963))? 1094 tons? 3415 tons? That's wild flaws, man, when you consider they were actually 355 ton ships. Who gave you that faulty info? If you need info on Norwegian ships then just ask me, I've got books on most of them. Keep up the good work! Manxruler 19:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, that's cool, man. I'm gonna write an HNoMS Otta article pretty soon, it will clarify things. By the way, I appreciate you added the various town-class Norwegian destroyers to the list, I was going to do it myself, but haven't had the time. Just generally, be careful with web sites, they're surprisingly often wrong. I mostly use English and Norwegian books on English and Norwegian subjects, I find that even books are often very inaccurate when they are written by authors who did not use original sources. For example, English litterature on Scandinavian subjects (barred thoes written by Scandinavian authors) is most of the time inaccurate and some of the time nonsense. You did stellar work on the List of World War II ships, would you like to help me out with the List of World War II ships of less than 1000 tons some day? Manxruler 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, the lists are starting to become somewhat cumbersome. Alphabetically is probably the way to go. Also the issue of "real" belligerents should be adressed. I kinda raised an eyebrow when I saw the various Danish ships on the list, their navy did not fight in WWII, unless you count scuttling the whole fleet after three years of cooperating with the occupiers as fighting. Did the South American navies do much combat? Maybe against uboats... We'll have see if we can come up with something later on. All the best. Manxruler 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made some changes. A lot of the detail you asked for I added to The Emergency. The IRA luftwaffe claim is cods, removed it. Will dig around the wiki and see if something already exists on k-lines and if so add a sentence (tried to slim down the entry by placing the extra details in refs.) Fluffy999 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Folks, Hope you are well. Sorry to hear about the controversy on the Codeword Page. My thoughts:

• I am inclined to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If some operations are not exactly military in nature, I would suppose a name-change to the page is the easy solution.
• The reason to be inclusive is that this listing is a sort of "Vertical (or is it call Horizontal?) History" showing things that were happening at about the same time and place, that is to show a relationship that a more strictly thematic listing might not highlight. "Oh look, the SS was doing this while the Allies did that." "The CIA was doing this while the Indians were doing that."
• Certainly it is important to leave some stuff out. We have both stood foursquare against including the names of 'things.' (U-Boat, Checkpoint Charlie)
• Does this help in any way?

Paul, in Saudi 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that 9 FAA personnel were summarily executed and two were Kiwis: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-a5.html Regards, Grant | Talk 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not my intention to argue about it, it was more like a question to you. But you're absolutely right. I forgot they use the word 'motorway' in the UK while they use 'highway' in the US. I Actually like the British English better and as I am not a native English speaker, I can't do anything but agree with you. I didn't know either that in the UK 'highway' is used for all public roads. So lets make it 'road' again:) Greetings! Wikifalcon

Unfortunately the image you looked at is the one I'd already changed. Most WWII articles seem to be using the 1957 ensign instead of the 1921 one.--Caranorn 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep the problem is mostly with anyone clicking on the flag to see a larger version and then finding themselves in front of the wrong one... I'd never noticed either, though I probably wouldn't have known the difference either.--Caranorn 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much as I'd like to, I can't block anyone: I'm not an admin. For someone vandalising after a final warning, you can report them at the please-block-this-**** page here. For anon IPs, particularly if they're from schools, only use this for ongoing vandalism. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks at 137. There is absolutely no problem with your edits; after all, I'am not a native English speaker, so it's quite possible I can miss some punctuations, edit a text with typos or with grammar mistakes. Thank you and best regards.

DagosNavy 16:15, 31 March 2007

Concerning your: (Undid revision 118934656 by Mohonu (talk) reverted as last edit removed most of article)

I didn't remove the article, I only transferred it to Addu Atoll, which is the Atolls true name. The introduction of code-letter names has been a source of much puzzlement and misunderstandings, especially among foreigners. Many people have come to think that the code-letter of the administrative atoll is its new name and that it has replaced its geographical name. Under such circumstances it is hard to know which is the correct name to use.

As a reference I always quote relevant Maldivian sources, like M. Luthfee and Hasan Maniku, which are local historians and geographers with clear ideas about names in the Maldives. Mohonu 06:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Folks. No, I'm not offended by your revert, not at all, in fact, I'm sorry for not replying any sooner, it's slipped my mind I guess.

According to German wikipedia [6] Leberecht Maas was either bombed or mined, while Max Schultz was mined.

However, according to this German encyclopedia [7] Leberecht Maas was bombed and Max Schultz definitively mined and this German encyclopedia [8] both were bombed. All in all I'm left quite unsure of what the official opinion really is. Manxruler 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks! I think your recent change to the Supercharge heading is wrong. As I understand it the original left hook through the gap by NZ Corps was part of the original Pugilist plan to cut off Italian 1st Army and advance to Sfax. It stalled in the Tebaga Gap on 23/24th March at which point Pugulist ended. Supercharge was the amended plan bringing in 1st Armoured and commenced 26 March. This is all stated in the NZ official history found by following the link in 6. References. Are your sources saying something different? Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there is a list of parameters... I just found the thing while working on other articles, and its useful to stop screen-cramping when you have something like two templates or large images with not so much text in between. I hope you find it useful as well. Maybe investigating the Template:Clear page will provide you with the answers you seek. -- saberwyn 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I didn't watch the video clips on that site, because the summaries below them made it clear what kind of stuff it was. Googling the name of the site is also useful - if it is extensively referenced by vho, codoh, fpp and the like - as this one was - then it is likely a denier propaganda piece. They did have the rug pulled from under them in the Irving trial, but that doesn't stop them from repeating the same old stuff. That really is the proof that they are not honest historians who merely want truth, IMHO - no matter how much debunking their crap gets, they keep on asserting the same things.

Do you know about Nizkor Project? They are into debunking denier claims. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Suffren page. I thought that comment was a bit nasty, and I could not verify it anywhere.Atkindave 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks Reading you very valuable contribution to the "Ireland" name debate, I realised you were advocating Option A; so I add you to the count for A. Another Editor has questioned my interpretation. Could you have a look here: [9] and see if I've interpreted you opinions correctly? Thanks (Sarah777 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

This page might help to answer a lot of your questions. You'll find a table listing all of the assessments for WikiProject Cities there, which is updated approximately every two days by a bot (looks at every page with the ((WPCities)) banner on it's talk page). When you added the plain ((WPCities)) tag with no assessments, those cities automatically appeared in Category:Unassessed-Class WikiProject Cities articles, which is how I found them.

The aforementioned assessment page also has some basic instructions on how to assess articles for quality and importance. Featured article and Good article quality must be assigned by going through a separate nomination process. I also usually only assign A-class to articles that have at least achieved Good Article status, since it ranks above GA on the assessment scale. Stub, Start, and B-class assessments are fairly subjective, but reviewing the guidelines should explain these pretty well.

Importance assessments are primarily assigned based on population, as well as status as a national capital (all national capitals are assessed as top-importance), or a regional/provincial/state capital (high-importance) (see the priority scale). There is also a more subjective classification as well, which allows for some cities that have more international recognition to be assessed at a higher importance than their normal population. Cambridge is such a city; with only a population of 124,000, it would normally be assessed as LOW. But due to it's recognition via the university and other research endeavors, I've reassessed this at HIGH. It is important to take into account that the importance assessment is for the importance globally to wikiproject cities, so some cities which editors might think are very important on the local level, may not be as important on the global scale. But many cities also have a local wikiproject, and can thus have more than one assessment (rate it as low or mid importance to WPCities, but top or high importance to your local wikiproject). The quality assessment, however, should generally be in agreement across all wikiprojects.

Hope this helps! Dr. Cash 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing to keep in mind regarding the importance assessment for articles, is the scope of the wikiproject itself. WP:CITIES has a pretty global scope, so the importance assessment on the scale should take into account the city's importance globally. If a city is a very important location to a particular nation's infrastructure, but is not really all that widely known on the global scale (like Hemel Hempstead - this is the first time I've even heard of the town, and I doubt people outside of Europe are really aware of it, either; a city like Cambridge, on the other hand, is pretty widely known globally for its education and research institutions), then it should be assessed on a high or top scale within the local wikiproject, and a lower assessment within WP:CITIES.

While the assessment guidelines stipulate that higher assessments may be given for, "International news coverage by at least two media agencies of an event or disaster," I personally don't think that's really accurate. I actually look at the overall historical significance of the city, and how the city on it's own interacts with the global community. Of course, this is still pretty subjective, but the importance assessments aren't really set in stone, either. A town like Biloxi, Mississippi would be assessed a 'low' importance, based on a population of 48,972. But after Hurricane Katrina blew through (an undoubtedly significant event with huge, long-lasting ramifications on the entire city), the article could be re-assessed up a notch, to 'mid' level importance. Dr. Cash 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are your thoughts on the current version of theis page? Have you got any more problems with the article? Oh and thankyou for your additions a) to the cunningham article but also for for creating the Dudley Burton Napier North article. Where did you get your information? I looked around for a while but couldn't find that much. I will try and expand it when i can, dependant on finding some more info! Any further comments on the Cunningham article would be appreciated. Thanks Woodym555 10:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have implemented some of your fixes. The Cowan section has been split, Lochinvar has been red-linked. (btw i created the Port Edgar page so know about Lochinvar!) Fixed the flag rank and significance sentence though it might need copyediting.

Bio:I might pull up the subjective card on the bio one. I think it would need a substantial rewrite to move it around. The early life and retirement might need mixing up and more information sourced. Currently, i personally (again subjective, feel free to disagree), i don't think it blocks up the text the way it is. peer review, A-Class review and the other FA reviewers haven't seen it as an issue.

Taranto: Lumley Lyster came up with the plan a few years before, it was changed slightly then put into action. I thought this was clear, (probably not if you've questioned it!)

Matapan:All of the fleet movements are explained in the Matapan article. I have added in a British Cruiser Squadron in the area. At the beginning it was ordered to meet up with pridham-Wippell who would then join up with Cunningham. As it turned out they didn't meet up early enough cue lots of miscommunication, near-misses and lucky escapes.

I have done some copyediting work on the earlier sections. The Cowan section originally had blockquotes in it, when they were removed the section wasn't properly formatted. If you feel it needs some sub-editing then please do it (if you have time), you won't be stepping on my toes, if it needs it then it needs it. As it is in my watchlist i will see any changes. I don't own the article by any means! Thanks for your help Woodym555 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything else that you want to add to the article. I certainly see it as comprehensive in its current state and now worthy of fa status. Is there anything that you feel will get in the way of this, anything outstanding? Thanks Woodym555 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No apology neccessary, A-levels are a rather stressful time, i would know. Whenever you have the time, reply to my request! Thanks Woodym555 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope all is good, most of the edits to the Cunningham page certainly are. I have one problem though; Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. many of the links that you are fixing such as Attack on Taranto link to the page anyway and so don't need to be fixed. (i didn't know either until an admin pointed it out) Woodym555 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news!! With regards to redirects i don't see it as a major problem with the article. I don't see why perfectly good links should now be reverted. I do think though, that from now on, we shouldn't add anymore piped links over redirects. That would seem to be the most suitable, even if it isn't the most consistent, approach to take. I think it would be even more effort for little achieved or improved in the article. Most MOS are guidelines and not set down rules, the only set rule is don't vandalise!! So i don't think we have a defence there. Woodym555 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means if you find redirects, they should of course be piped, but in the future we should adhere to the if it ain't broke, don't fix it guideline. Happy editing. Woodym555 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your little fixes. Do you see anything that prevents it form being an FA? An FA does not have to be perfect, it has to fulfil all the criteria and i think it does. With regards to the Dover Patrol, no there is not that much information. Evn in his bio there wasn't much info. I had a hard enough time trying to find info to create the Dover article in the first place!! Hope all is good. Woodym555 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, treading the fine line of WP:CANVASS here buyou are opposed to itd promotion at the moment. Neutral can be used if you are unsure. Of course, it is whatever you think it should be and not what i think it should be, i have a certain WP:COI!!!

Dover Patrol: Yes i used most of those when i created the Dover Patrol article, the amazon link was very useful, thanks, i may have to acquire that book somehow!! Woodym555 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that I see any "external links" that I have added to the article. I added one link to HMNZS Leander, one to New Zealand, and two to India. Please explain further. Mkpumphrey 14:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind you adding all manner of other project tags but PLEASE stop deleting the Irelandproj tags! Regards (Sarah777 23:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

If any of you want to test the test template, just create a sandbox page of your own and add this line to it:

((User:Flowerpotman/sandbox/templtest))

The options currently supported are on this page User:Flowerpotman/sandbox/templtest. This template is really just a copy of the the current WP:Cities template. The current Wikiproject Ireland template is based on an old version of the WP:Cities one. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks. Now, I hate being a fly in the soup, but I've got some feedback on your new template. Its the issue of Battles of Narvik being a separate part of the template, that's just wrong... The battles of Narvik were part of the Norwegian campaign, not a separate from it. The battles were battles that occurred during the campaign, not a different thing. I think that's an important point, so I'll do a little bit of editing, hope you don't mind. Manxruler 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't get me wrong, its a really nice template and a neccessary one at that, just keep the Narvik battles out of such an overview context. Manxruler 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Folks. Glad you don't mind. Yeah, I can see how that would be true, the Brits are really Narvik-focused, although the fighting took place all over the country and British LAND forces fought mostly in the southern and mid portions of Norway (f.ex.: Namsos campaign). In fact, the Brits did virtually no land fighting on the Narvik front, they contributed with the RN and RAF while the Norwegians, French and the Poles fought Dietl's men on land. For the annual Christmas tree gift to London see either Norway (best) or Oslo. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although Iceland is considered a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian country as such, I feel Invasion of Iceland could fit in quite well in the template. Besides, the whole definition of "Scandinavia" is quite open to interpretation and often includes the Nordic countries. Plus, Iceland was part of Denmark when the Brits invaded in 1940. Lets include the Invasion of Iceland, that makes sense. If there are other major Icelandic WWII articles they could probably work in the template too. Good idea. Manxruler 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that since the Scandinavia article states (with ref.) that "As a linguistic and cultural concept, Scandinavia thus also includes Iceland and the Faroe Islands." it would be totally ok to add Icelandic articles (of importance comparable with the articles already in the template, of course) to the template. Manxruler 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for adding those useful citations to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest article. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tanks, Folks. Remember, I'am not a native speaker, so my English could sound somewhat strange or flawed to a native reader. I thought "achieves" would be stronger for my argument with another user than the original "supports" I had employed. Again, thank you for your help :).

DagosNavy 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks must go to you as well for providing all the little fixes, copyedits and additional information that it needed to get up to FA. Yes, looking at Mr O'Neill with some expectation!! Thanks again for all your help. Woodym555 10:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know whether you are around at the moment, but for a limited time only, Cunningham is on the main page. It is quite a reward actually. :) (constant vandalism) Woodym555 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Folks. I view this simply as ip user vandalism and have started reverting them as such. If a proper user had made these edits with good intentions then that user would have discussed this first, and made proper edit comments. This ip user is just carrying out plain old vandalism. Manxruler 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Folks at 137/pauk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Michael Johnson (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this supposed to be in your user space or is it supposed to be an article? John Reaves 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're attempting to improve the existing article, you need to move Folks at 137/pauk to something like User:Folks at 137/pauk. The "User:" means it won't show up in the main namespace. Once you are finished improving the article, you can copy the new version from your userspace to the article. John Reaves 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Folks. Thought you might be interested in that I have added this English language external link as a citation at the Norway article for the annual gift of a Christmas tree (spruce) to the city of London. The article also includes links to a couple of related Christmas tree stories. Be well and keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems a bit odd to have Bubbles as th infobox picture for James. I have a photo of James, but I don't know its copyright status. I will upload it. If you or other naval experts know the copyright status of the image please add it. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's from the website on HMS Hood that's an external link on the James article. I mean I don't know where it comes from before that. Paul B (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kent Fortress Royal Engineers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup^{(is awake!)} 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added the much linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_Corps_%28United_Kingdom%29 but I think it needs attention from a British expert (and formatting).--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Folks.

I merged the entries in Template:Campaignbox Mediterranean Naval Campaign (1940-1944) into the existing Template:Campaignbox Mediterranean Campaign and updated the articles to use the latter. Do you have any objections to my deleting the "Naval Campaign" one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking into trying to seperate out the convoys, but the problem is that they are quite mixed with serious combat activities (i.e. Battle of Cape Bon, First and Second Sirte etc.). I'm prosposing in the campaignbox template, that we add a footer so that we can annotate entries. Hence, each battle which involved a convoy bound for Malta could labelled with an explanation at the bottom. Oberiko (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite follow. My line is that we can't seperate them out. Most battles in the Mediterranean were attacking / defending convoys and I think taking them out of chronological order reduces its effectiveness. Perhaps we could have two seperate boxes? One for the "battles" (which would include some convoys) and another for the Malta convoys (which would include some battles). So, something like Operation Pedestal would appear in both, but Taranto would only appear in the "Battle" box, while Operation Portcullis and other convoys that were not attacked would only appear in the "Malta convoy" box. Oberiko (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to use your Kostopol notes for a paper I am writing about Volhynia, but I need to cite my references. Are you able to provide original references for your Kostopol comments on Wikipedia?

If possible, I would appreciate obtaining the name of the publication/s, year published, place of publication and page number/s.

Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.13.55 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to use your Kostopol notes for a paper I am writing about Volhynia, but I need to cite my references. Are you able to provide original references for your Kostopol comments on Wikipedia?

If possible, I would appreciate obtaining the name of the publication/s, year published, place of publication and page number/s.

Thanks for any help.

My return email is: virtualgarbage@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.13.55 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry if this is a dumb question (the inner workings in Wikipedia are mysterious).

Folks at 137, I am looking to find references for the Italian air units listed in the Italian army (tenth) entry. Are you the original poster of that information ?

thanks,

Tom (gionpeters@comcast.net)

I'm sorry, but Spitsbergen was discovered by the Dutch, so it should only be spelled Spitsbergen when writing in English. If this was the German wikipedia, you could spell it with a "z", but not when you're writing in English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, etc. The "z" spelling was probably a mistake by those translating Martens' (1675) work from German into English. Unfornately, this mistake has been repeated to the present by writers ignorant of Spitsbergen's history. Please do not revert it back to the incorrect spelling. Thanks. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the gap, but I was away for a couple of weeks. I have left some comments at Talk:Philip Vian. There are some suggestions of how to move on, others are little MOS suggestions. If you need any help, or want me to expand on the comments, then please leave a note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, if they are all relevant then leave them, it just looked a bit unwieldy at first glance. If you can't get one under public domain then you should be able to claim one under fair-use. If I can be of any further assistance, just ask. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're quick you should be able to download Vian's full service history from the National Archives website (all records on this series are free for a short time). I've added a link to the article. This should be exactly what's on the Admirals website, but it may be worth checking they haven't mistranscribed anything (it's not particularly easy to read it has to be said). David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you expand please? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks at 137. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you remove the as you call it inapropriate list from the ballyshannon article? you had no right to do that, are you even from ballyshannon? could you please just mind your own business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-joe123 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes exactly, if you don't want your contributions to be edited mercessly do NOT sumbit it which is exactly what you have done by removing that list in the ballyshannon article, and don't you dare tell me to have a look at the help page as if I am some sort of stupid idiot, are you even from ballyshannon?, tell me where you are from and don't ignore my question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-joe123 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have one more day to nominate Donegal Corridor for a Did you know? entry but whatever fact you use must be cited well in the article and be no more than 200 chars. Good luck and hurry up. ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks at 137. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donegal Corridor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you for your comments on London's previous peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4. London is under going another peer review, so please may I ask that, if you get the time, you review the article again and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive5?

Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why has the WPCities tag been added to Glendalough (population 0)?--Yumegusa (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and Killyleagh (pop. 2,483), and Bushmills (pop. 1,319), and Kinsale (the last three are small towns, certainly not cities); and Howth and Tallaght, both parts of Dublin city. I thought first this was a robot run amok, but it appears that you're doing this manually. Please desist as it's a waste of editors' time having to undo.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the new light cast on this. The only one I actually undid was Glendalough, and I'd insist on this, since it was never a town, merely a monastic settlement, which was destroyed and abandoned over 600 years ago. I'll take a look at the project tomorrow, but my immediate reaction is that it's grossly and misleadingly misnamed. What I am still struggling with is, by what criteria did you select those Irish towns and suburbs while leaving larger places untagged?--Yumegusa (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Given recent discussions regarding extinct communities, I thought you might be interested in this thread regarding historical settlements at the Template:Infobox Settlement page. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to help. Sending notes directly to likely editors is a good approach — hopefully some of the ghost town participants will respond favorably. Also, someone in the proposal discussion mentioned Category:Former settlements, which I see was created by User:Jpbowen — perhaps drop him an FYI. Examining the edit histories of related categories and articles should reveal quite a few more possibilities. (User:Noitall, User:Kevin Myers, etc.) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Folks.

I took a look at the whole discussion on WP Extinct Settlements; I apologize, but it just doesn't seem to ring with me, although I do not oppose its formation directly.

Also, the fact that you are tagging all these non-American settlements articles with WPCities tags is really helpful, so there is absolutely no reason to apologize for that. It's a refreshing break from the mind-droning piles of short articles with names so generic they bore me on the spot. We could bring things up with Dr. Cash to form new task forces also, if necessary, since he is the de facto man in charge.

No worries, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I could see why CDPs have their own articles; a CDP still has a history and the like, it's just more than a specific town in itself. If one really wanted to, a CDP article could be expanded past a Stub or Start rating. They are, after all, communities of their own, albeit ones with bare bones articles. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. sorry not to have answered before - I have been out of the country. It is late where I am, but I will look and comment in the immediate future. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About adding templates to Talk:Haslington: If you read WP:CITIES (especially section 4), you will see that WP:UKGEO which includes WP:UKCITIES as guidelines is also mentioned as a related project and derivative guidelines. The UKCITIES guidelines were written because of a potential problem with people trying to insist on the guidelines for WP:CITIES being applied to places in the UK which are not suited for it. Hence WP:UKCITIES was derived from the WP:CITIES, and they have been used successfully to get many articles to GA and FA status. They are specifically tailored for UK places, though they have been based on the WP:CITIES guidelines to help maintain uniformity as far as is sensible, etc. My only concerns with adding the WP:CITIES template are that (a) there will be unnecessary friction and disputes at the GA and FA stage, which did happen before, and (b) it is effectively redundant, as the UKGEO template is already there, and the UK Geography project is noted to be closely related to the CITIES project, which means there is some unnecessary duplication. These reasons are why I removed it. I wonder if this is worth a note on the WP:CITIES project page?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(copy of reply posted on my talk page) Thanks for the response. I haven't come across the need to write about deserted settlements. and I don't think there are any of real interest in the county of the UK that is my main interest (Cheshire), but I'll bear it in mind. I agree that the project is a bit too USA-centric, and was toying with the idea of raising that issue: for instance, I think it is partly illustrated by the actual name chosen for the project which makes it, from a UK point of view, highly misleading given its scope. I was going to suggest that a more generic framework-type set of guidelines could be specified that is then used as the basis from which to derive more specialized country-specific ones (such as the USCITY and UKCITY ones), though some better choice of names may help.) So, thanks for the response.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now absorbed the article - sorry for the delay - and I think that it has the potential to achieve FA, or at least GA status. I can suggest some areas where improvement would be possible (only because you asked me to) and in doing so I think it fair to say that the article is, i think, a better one than I could have done.

Essentially, I think it needs expanding. Another editor has adding a flag at the top of the article indicating that in his view the introduction is insufficiently detailed, and I think that this is correct. The first paragraph, I suggest, tries to say too much about too much; the initial summary does not need to preview every aspect of the article - the detail can be left for the main body of the text. Within the main article there are many places where you make a perfectly correct statement, but do not give supporting detail. For example, you say one member of a class survived the war. Which one? One was ceded to a foreign power. Which one? In the various battles you document, which ships were involved? Which ABDA ones? What time was the battle? (Radar effect). Which ships survived? Names of admirals/commanders both sides. Exact map co-ordinate sites of battles, which are not easily obtained in all cases. Etcetera.

Much of this data I could insert, and will do so if you wish; I tend to take a rather old-fashioned and somwhat non-wikipedic view it is your privilege to to make such amendments as you feel appropriate, so I will leave you to it for the moment. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed one editor had categorised the article as start, which I felt was very harsh, though I note that you subsequently responed to the challenge implied. I do not actually think that it is possible to insert too much detail; if the same fact happens thereby to exist in two seperate articles I do not have a problem with this. Clearly I am not suggesting that you should specify the name of every destroyer skipper, nor asking you to detail the minutiae of their day-to-day existence; my point was that if you add a fact which stimulates a question in the mind of the reader (what ship, where, when, etc) then if possible that question should be immediately answered. Sure, the article gets longer; but people who are interested will appreciate that, and people who aren't won't read it anyway! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this was a paper encyclopedia, I'd agree on pic sizing, but they tend to "blow up" nicely when clicked, if anybody's wondering. I make no claim for the scrupulous accuracy of Fitzsimons, but I've got it handy...& the naval editor is Antony Preston, who I'd generally call reliable. And looking at the talk page, I now see what you meant. (I've got a thing going here, so I was a bit distracted. ;D ) I wasn't suggesting you look, just somebody coming here might. (It's probably gonna end up being you or me, unless somebody gets interested... :/ ) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:19, 23 November & 00:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't look like there's a lot of backing for the project at the moment, though of course that could easily change. Either way, though, going ahead with some of the related work sounds like a good idea — if I can help in any way, just let me know. Are you thinking of setting up categories by region, country, etc.? I support the point you made on the WikiProject Proposal page about the overly narrow nature of the term "ghost town" as it related to extinct settlements, and (speaking personally) I'd favor changing some of the existing ghost town categories to use the broader terminology where appropriate. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you're making progress. In regards to using "lost settlement", it's an improvement over "ghost town"; however, I think it also carries some potentially confusing connotations of its own. To me, a lost city is one whose location or existence is no longer certain, in the sense that "lost" means "no longer to be found" -- "the lost city of Atlantis"[10], for instance, or more recently Machu Picchu[11] or Paititi[12]. Most of the towns in my area that no longer exist would never be called "lost settlements" (many still have clear vestiges remaining); instead they're merely extinct.

I think your original suggestion for using the term "extinct" was excellent and much the best, since it's both very broad and very accurate, carrying no connotations regarding the hows and wherefores. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good renaming proposal — you have my support. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a comment on that page ...which I've just noticed is almost the same point as that made by Huwmanbeing above... - you may wish to respond. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Folks at 137. I have some concerns about some of your recent category creations. I am worried that some of the "lost settlement" categories are both redundant and confusing. For example, Category:Lost settlements in Turkey and Category:Lost settlements in Greece, the first two I noticed, are not sufficiently different from the more prosaic Category:Archaeological sites in Turkey and Category:Archaeological sites in Greece. The latter include many well developed subcategories with which a user may focus his search on a time period or on a more discrete geographical area. In addition, most of the settlements included in these recently created "lost settlement" categories are not in fact lost; indeed, their locations are precisely known. Consequently, I believe that many encyclopaedia readers will find the word "lost" confusing. I believe I understand your motivation in creating the categories, both through the discussion above and the explanatory notices you have provided on the category pages themselves, but feel that our project would be better served by "archaeological" rather than "lost settlement" categories. Would you please consider nominating some of the these new categories, particularly those in areas where other well developed archaeological category trees already exist, under WP:CSD G7? Regards, Aramgar (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that several other editors have found the word "lost" in your Category:Lost settlements confusing or inappropriate: [13] [14] [15] [16]. If the preferred convention would be "Extinct settlements in X", why should we not expend the effort in moving them through the regular category for renaming protocols? It is not really that much trouble: when categories are renamed, a bot typically swaps the old category for the renamed one within a few hours. Would you agree to have all these "lost" categories moved to "extinct" categories? Aramgar (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Folks. Looks good. Let me know if I can do anything further to help. Aramgar (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks the information!!!! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently added the WikiProject Cities template to Perth Township. However, Townships in North Dakota don't really qualify as settlements. These are civil townships and completely different from towns or townships in other states. They are very rural, don't operate like cities, and are subordinate to the counties in which they reside. Some states treat townships like city-level government, but North Dakota does not. I don't object to including them in the project, since any help to expand and improve the articles is welcome, but O just wanted to double check to see if this is the appropriate place for them. If so, I can add the template to the other township articles I am creating.DCmacnut<> 20:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With new milhist arts please consider also putting the WP Indonesia tag in as well - thanks SatuSuro 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, the only other category I've found which I think would be appropriate is Category:Aviation history. Letdorf (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Re [17], those 2 newspapers look much better. When it comes to wp:v, and especially on an wp:blp, the burden of proof lies with those adding info - not removing. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t15:27z

OK maybe there is a possible usage for the Indonesian category - but contents and usage of the parent category I find quite disturbing to put it mildly (israel in asia?) - the scope - bit like calling the indian ocean a sea of the pacific ocean to my mind - SatuSuro 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the description - 'Modern Indonesia'- krakatoa erupted in the 1880s that was during the colonial era. Sorry there needs to be some re-thinking here on a few issues - cheers SatuSuro 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok indeed you may be right - but I would have thought a more judicious breakdown or seperation into components parts would have been more appropriate for the categories SatuSuro 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ss. Cyril and Methodius Cathedral, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ss._Cyril_and_Methodius_Cathedral_(Prague,_Czech_Republic). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No issues whatsoever with this re-direct, thanks for moving all the other re-directs as well. This cathedral has a ridiculous number in its history. StarM 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your additions are welcome, but they aren't exactly well referenced, and your links aren't much good either. Can we expect any work by you anytime soon to improve those areas? Mdw0 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• • Text removed from here by Mdw0 on 10 March **

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Former settlements in south east Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Former settlements in Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SatuSuro 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) BTW - no problems from where you are coming from on the issue - but I think there would have to be very good evidence of usage of lower case - it is beyond me as my honours and post graduate career in the subject I have never seen the usage - if you have good concrete examples - please show SatuSuro 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you convert a redirection page to a disambiguation page, as you did on 30 March 2008 to Liverpool Road railway station, you should first check all the articles which link to that page and, if appropriate, link those pages directly to the target. In the case of this article, I have done this for you. Please bear this in mind for the future. If you have done something similar to other articles, please go back and check those articles too. Thanks. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am Krasilschic. You seem to be a person of notable intelligence pertaining to ww2. I recently created an article which could use lots of help. The article is dale bair. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--Krasilschic (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Folks at 137, I take it there is more than one of you. I have noticed that you have been using my website on Abandoned Communities to add bits and pieces to Wikipedia. Your work is very much appreciated. I have noticed no traces of nastiness. All the best, Stephen Fisk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safisk (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Folks at 137. Could you add your sources or reliable external links, please? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Folks at 137. This is somewhat interesting topic for me, I live near to an area, where the mammoth hunters were active. Have a nice day :) --Vejvančický (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I reverted your addition of Cat:former settlements at Charterhouse, Somerset as it is still a settlement (even if only a small one) - you may have been thinking of Charterhouse Roman Town?— Rod ^talk 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for creating this article. --John (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm certainly not going to edit war over this, but it is a longstanding rule that headers do not contain links. See WP:MOSLINK. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. I was using AWB to disambiguate, and as part of its 'cleanup' the program removes links in headings. The program does it, but it's my edit. I think you have a good point about the use of links in headings that are part of a table-style section. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:0908 Petrovac.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Petrovac 2009.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:Petrovac 2009.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Naval Historical Society of Australia, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://member.melbpc.org.au/~macden/index.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there.

I've recently posted on WP:HERTS and User:Simply South's talk page about the possibility of bringing the project back to life, and if so how we would go about this and what we would do. I was wondering if you would be interested in getting involved? I think we have a small but dedicated and diverse group of editors, including editors with interests in geography, sports, transport, mills, politics, music and history. If we could bring these talents together I reckon we could produce some fantastic work on some of the project's key areas, such as Hertfordshire, History of Hertfordshire, and the county's larger settlements.

Personally I believe the key to successfully bringing together the efforts of editors with interest in anything remotely Herts related will be to maintain at least a semi-active talk page at WT:HERTS, so feel free to give any thoughts you have there. Also, don't be afraid to be bold if you feel something to do with the project can be changed for the better. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are any remaining issues with this article let me know and I'll deal with them. Otherwise I'd like to put it to bed. If you do pass it please remember to follow the proper procedures at WP:GAN lest you get a nasty gram from somebody like I have in the past.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi folks@137, I added a proper copyright tag licence to File:209 RAF emblem.gif but you forgot to add a source and perhaps you can fill in the rest of the info template that I added. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rated that over two years ago, and I cannot remember why I put down B-class. It doesn't seem to even come close. I'd say it's probably start-class at best. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has actually been a consensus for several months on (in the assessment, look at the first section; the majority is clearly for it). I had mentioned said consensus in another thread, which no one responded to. Besides, you've gotta admit that it's crazy for someplace like Podorigo, Montenegro or Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea to have a higher rating than New York or Mumbai Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see you replaced the image for this with a much better photo of HMS Ladybird - it gives a good representation of what the boats looked like. However, the guns as shown in this photograph are not representative of the class - they are the 30-inch longer 50-calibre guns mounted only in Ladybird and Aphis from 1939. I think we either need to use a more representative photo or note in the photo caption that the guns shown on Ladybird are not the original. What do you think ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't find a better profile image of the class than the WWII photo of Ladybird already there... so I've dated the photo and added an explanation that her guns as seen are 30 inches longer than the originals... regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have added Wrangel Island to Category:Former settlements in Russia, but the introduction speaks of the two villages as still existing. Can you clarify? Dankarl (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No opinion here. I am not sure I understand your reply but my query was with respect to the post-1925 settlements.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Denton (A Touch of Frost). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denton (A Touch of Frost). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks. Please see this edit - it's a correction to your edit earlier today, because |date accessed= isn't recognised, but |accessdate= is. Further info at ((cite web)). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks at 137. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 12:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Folks. I think I owe you an apology about the dog bowl but at least the article now has proper citations. It still needs a bit of copy/editing about Mike Penning, Mike or Penning.
I should explain that I've been looking at marginal MPs I've spoken to and have been concerned about ultra dubious material from single topic IP's quoting, I suspect, their own opposing blogs. I've offered friendly advice but suggest we both look out for this until after polling day.
As an aside, is anyone still in favour of smoking in Hemel post Buncefield?
Regards JRPG (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Folks at 137. You have new messages at JRPG's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Zakhar Zakupnev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you possibly give some indication where you found this? Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this article, which you created in 2005. Referencing standards have changed since then and this article is in dire need of improvement. There is no reason why it can't get to GA / FA in time and there must be a wealth of sources on and offline on this subject. Please see my comments at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts, it is a new WikiProject and needs help in developing into a well written, well organised and useful project, help would be greatly appreciated. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Scottish Class 170.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Climbing Great Buildings, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 10:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested a speedy deletion of the above article because itoes not seem to establish the necessary notability of the business. JodyB _talk 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Reply[reply]

CORRECTION: I deleted, not requested a delete of the page. If you wish I can userfy for you so you can improve it. JodyB _talk 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, the article is back and should not have been deleted. It was vandalized and made to appear as an article about an online sex store. So, I restored the article and removed the added vandalism. It is back in the form it was in prior to the vandalism. Sorry for the confusion. JodyB _talk 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:ICE at St Pancras.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Hi, I have this article on my watchlist because I expanded it a couple times a while back, getting it to B-Class for the MilHist project. Do you have a reliable source for all the awards and dates you added? B-Class means everything has to be cited, in similar style to how it's done for the main body of the article. Some of the list just repeats info that's cited in the main body but much is shown here for the first time so it needs referencing. Then again, I think lists like this are generally best avoided and if you have a good source for all these, we could just slot the data in at the appropriate points in the narrative... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article OssiUrlaub, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OssiUrlaub until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

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) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job creating Marian Bronisław Tomaszewski. In future, if you create an above-stub, referenced article, please consider nominating it at T:TDYK for a front-page exposure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you know Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is a Grand Commander of the Order of SS George and Constantine? Burke's Peerage says the Duke of Kent is a member of the 1st class, but says Philip is a member of the 4th class. So, I don't understand how they can both have the same grade. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

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) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you added[18] some new categories to the Martti Ahtisaari article. However, some of them do not exist. I will remove them unless you intend to create those categories.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

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) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 01:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I had to undo your edit. His list of decorations on the French wiki is inaccurate. Someone over there simply confused the rare, highly prestigious Order of Victory with the Medal For the Victory Over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945.Bahavd Gita (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I did not revert your edit, but I think a source should be added. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As suggested, I've added a ref to this article. The info was originally taken from Polish wiki (to bring them into line), and I've reused that ref as well. I don't speak Polish but the relevant bit is towards the end of the ref'd article. Hope it suffices. Answer on my page if there's a problem or you want a chat. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Polish either, but "Krzyż Zasługi" seems to be "Cross of Merit" and "Krzyża Oficerskiego Orderu Odrodzenia Polski" seems to be Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta. There is no mention of the Commander's Cross though. I can't figure out how the Polish Wikipedia referenced it. --Muhandes (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

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) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 22:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

A consensus is taking place at Talk:List of castles in England#Consensus to split List of castle in England. You are invited to participate. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Folks at 137! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

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 and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Hi folks,

Keep up the good work! The world needs to know what humble monks these men are ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.170 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this! The point is to document what happens and no commentary is intended, I hope any personal views I may or may not have are not discernable. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In Nikolai Patrushev, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Medal of Honour (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) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Mstislav Rostropovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of the Phoenix (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) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Hi. When you recently edited Yury Solomin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (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) 10:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Galina Vishnevskaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hamilton College

Yuli Mikhailovich Vorontsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medal of Honour

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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]} 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.Reply[reply]