Archives

Archive 1 (Apr. 2006 – Apr. 2007) Archive 2 (Apr. 2007 – Dec. 2007) Archive 3 (Dec. 2007 – May 2008) Archive 4 (May 2008 – Jan. 2009) Archive 5 (Feb. 2009 – Sept. 2009) Archive 6 (Sept. 2009 – Apr. 2010) Archive 7 (May 2010 – Mar. 2012)

Your Action of 26 April 1797 DYK has been approved, but a suggestion has been made that it be held for a few weeks so it appears on the main page on 26 April 2012 (which would be its 215th anniversary). Can you please let us know on the template page whether you would prefer it to run on the 26th, or run in the next few days? Thank you, and thanks again for submitting the DYK hook! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Action of 22 August 1795, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadsides (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) 11:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very complimentary review! All the best. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[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.

Action of 6 November 1794 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Hood

Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyons

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 22 August 1795, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a naval battle was fought between British and Dutch frigate squadrons in the North Sea off Eigerøya in August 1795? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 22 August 1795.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackyd, I've been reading your articles with great interest, filling some significant gaps in coverage and greatly improving others. With regard to John Wentworth Loring though, he was not actually the officer who ever commanded Bellerophon, or who was commodore at the Blockade of Saint-Domingue. That was his first-cousin, plain John Loring, who died, still a captain, at Fareham in 1808. Benea (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, thanks for catching that. He was in the right place at the right time and everything - oh well. Do let me know if you catch any other errors.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few typographical things I think, and far less than I am sure I have made in my time! I researched the Bellerophon captains quite a bit while rewriting that article, and the only one I haven't written one for is Loring. You can find some key service dates, like promotions and commissions, follow him from command to command and get some insights into what he was doing on some of them, but apart from a few snippets like his death announcements, there is still a lot of blank space. I can't find any proper biography or obituary unfortunately. I might consider writing one though to be honest, as there is a lot to say about certain aspects, like the progress of the blockade, but it would have virtually nothing on his early life, for example. What do you think? Benea (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a tricky question that I've pondered for years - where does the notability line lie with Napoleonic naval officers? On the one hand, these guys were big celebrities in their days, but there were a lot of them and many didn't do much other than sit on blockade duties year after year - I feel though that a captain at a major battle or the commander of an operation (i.e. Loring) probably should always qualify in theory. At the end of the day I think the basic notability rules are useful - if you can't find the sources to create a fleshed article (even a small one), then the subject probably doesn't meet notability requirements. The question then is where to draw the line: some are easy - if Tracy or the ODNB cover them then making an article is simple, and any one still alive after 1825 is covered by Marshall for at least the basics. After that date there are also a number of annual magazines that carry useful obituaries. However, officers who died before about 1820 are always difficult to create articles on: an example of one I made a special effort with is Thomas Byard and you can see how little I could gather on him. If you think you could muster something of around that length then its probably worthwhile, but if its only ever going to be a stub then maybe not.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[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.

Action of 21 October 1794 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Falmouth

John Monkton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Newfoundland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 26 April 1797, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although a Spanish treasure convoy was captured at the Action of 26 April 1797, the cargo had already been smuggled to safety aboard a fishing boat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 26 April 1797.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

G'day, Jackyd101. I've started the GA review for First Battle of Algeciras. The review can be found at: Talk:First Battle of Algeciras/GA1. If you get a chance, can you please respond to my comments? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanny Imlay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was just wondering if you have seen my comments on your two articles that are at GA. Thurgate (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I hadn't - sudden project at work. I'll try and get to them as soon as possible - the weekend at latest. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

I believe the coordinates on the article you started, the Action of 10 April 1795, are wrong. They seem more like the ones for the Glorious First of June. If the 10 April battle was held just west of the approaches to Brest, I think it'd be closer to land. Please tell me your thoughts. -- Veggy (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The co-ordinates come from a reference. The difficulty in precise co-ordinates for naval actions of this type is that they often occurred across hundreds of miles of open sea. The action here began off Brest but finished far out to sea. I have changed the name accordingly. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles on the Algeciras Campaign, First Battle of Algeciras, and Second Battle of Algeciras. I was looking for Spain articles to add onto the WP Spain page primarily (as I am a member of it), but happen to notice it on those pages. You should nominate as a a Good Topic nomimee, witholding any potential edits needed, which shoudn't need much if any. Not sure if you noticed it or not, but thought I'd say something about it. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I'd like to do this, but I don't have the time at the moment to devote to this kind of process. I'll keep it in mind for the future though. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Dear Jackyd101, Would it possible to indicate the sources within the text of British expedition to Tibet? Somebody requested so in the French wiki article, which is a translation of this article, that I beleive you created for most of it. Thanks in advance, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012 September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012 Project News[1] There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help! The oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections. There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better! Member News There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed! This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page. GA Task forces There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions. Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon. Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive. Good Articles of the Month Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month. Barry (dog) I Love Bees Miles Copeland (Home and Away) London Country North East The Daily Show Some Tips About References/Sources Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth. The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing. Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed. Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article. Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." From the Editor After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page. Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!! PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (Editor of this Issue) Did You Know... ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined? ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Wikipedia, only 15,846 are good articles? ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles? Notes ^ As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC). ^ Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing. Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Albert Schädler (talk | history | start review) • John Higgins (talk | history | start review) • Damita Jo (album) (talk | history | start review) • Madame X (album) (talk | history | start review) • Cezary Ketling-Szemley (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Clare Winger Harris • Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix • International Aerial Robotics Competition • Prithu • Han van Meegeren • It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) • Kraków • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on October 8, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/October 8, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown was made up of a British fleet under Admiral Adam Duncan and a Dutch fleet under Vice-Admiral Jan de Winter. The Battle of Camperdown was an important naval action of the French Revolutionary Wars, fought off Camperduin on the North Holland coast on 11 October 1797. The French Republic had overrun the Dutch Republic two years earlier, reforming it into the Batavian Republic. The battle commenced when, in a confused mass, the British attacked the Dutch line of battle in shallow coastal waters. The British ships separated into two groups that struck the vanguard and rear of the Dutch fleet, overwhelming each in turn and capturing eleven ships, including de Winter's flagship Vrijheid. Although both fleets fought hard, they were suffering from popular unrest; the Spithead and Nore mutinies in Britain continued to overshadow the Navy, while the sailors of the Dutch Navy were unhappy with French dominion and, in marked difference to their officers, were generally supporters of the exiled House of Orange.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot

I have added 'your' campaigns into the Napoleonic wars template. Just thought I would let you know chum it needs some recognition to all the hard work you have put in. Keep it up. Many thanks Chris Wet 16:47, 16 October 2012 (GMT)

Thanks! Thats very kind. Its a shame I can't give it the time I'd like these days.-Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN. Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

	The Citation Barnstar
	I would like to reward a citation barnstar to you for your excellent work in referencing and sourcing Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackyd101,

I have gone through your article on the Gaisal train disaster, and have now added 4 references to it. When you get a chance would it be possible for you to pop back over and take a look to see if the additions are fine by you. I also removed the unreferenced tag that was on the top of the article. Anyway, please let me know if you have any issues with what I did.

Kindest regards to you and happy wiki-ing, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Hi Jackyd101, The article has footnotes and an in text reference to "the historian James Henderson", but the references do not list his book (article?). Do you by any chance know what the reference is? I would like to be able to cite the info on annual wages for captains, seamen, etc., when reporting prize money awards. Thanks & regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right - how foolish of me! I've added it to the references now (note that Henderson makes one huge mistake here and places the action in 1796 instead of 1799, but he is otherwise reliable). Thanks for bringing this up!--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will now go borrow a copy. I needed a good source to cite when trying to put prize money awards into context. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent good articles on Algeciras and good luck with your Order of Battle Featured List candidate - lets hope it joins Camperdown. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 16 October 1799, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the Action of 16 October 1799 a Spanish treasure convoy worth more than £600,000 (£43 million at present value) was captured by the Royal Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 16 October 1799. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already assessed this as B-class. Really nice work. Djmaschek (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Raz de Sein, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Raz de Sein. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Action of 16 October 1799 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rias, Cocoa and Broadsides

Action of 7 April 1800 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sir John Jervis and Sir Richard Bickerton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time or interest, feel free to take a look at my two lists at FLC: List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple and List of songs recorded by Pink Martini. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I hope you like my contribution to the Campaign with the sieges of Cattaro and Ragusa. I noticed how much you contributed to the campaign itself. Thank you.ChrisWet (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Childers Incident, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Childers Incident of 1793 was the first action between British and French forces in the French Revolutionary Wars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Childers Incident. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that I have stumbled on a small snag with Action of 18 August 1798, and I would appreciate your thoughs on the matter.

The article currently describes as facts war crimes commited by the French crew after the capture of Leander. Recently, I have found a number of French sources that either do not mention these allegations, or explicitly refute them. Léon Guérin even traces the allegations to "the small English pamphlet in-32, titled Life of Nelson" (I suppose he refers to Clarke and McArthur's Life of Nelson, which is quoted by James to source these allegations.

I have not found any direct mention of the incident by Captain Thomas Thompson himself. Furthermore, the nature of the allegations should I think raise suspicion"

• the British crew did not resist the plunder: Troudes gives this as an argument that the tale is implausible; James, while agreeing to the allegations without reserve, seems unsettled too ("the lions were now changed to lambs"). Apparently the French prize crew was far inferior in numbers, and unarmed.
• the quote "j'en suis fâché, mais le fait est, que les Français sont bons au pillage": while privateers from both sides engaged in this sort of behaviour, then usually downplay it in their accounts, and make a great case of the instances in which they seized only the cargo and not personnal effect. In the mouth of a Navy officer, I find it most suspect, and oddly alligned on the anti-Jacobine propaganda of the time.
• the accusation of various vexations against wounded is a typical theme of the propaganda of the time, often used as a general-purpose insult, much like "parricide"; it seems close to be the equivalent of present-day insinuations of similarities with the Third Reich or accusations of pædophilia.

I realise that my focus on French sources could make my request suspect, but I have tried to be as abrasive as I possibly can to similar instances of French propaganda, like on Vengeur du Peuple or Robert Surcouf. I would be very interested in your views as to whether and how this subject should be presented.

Thank you in any case, and cheers! Rama (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting and I certainly think its worthy of note. Some caution should be applied though - although I broadly agree with your analysis above, its synthesis and original research and as such cannot be used in the article - we have to stick to the references. Here is what I propose: I will rejig the article to reflect that the statements regarding the plunder of the ship are the representations of British sources. You can then add a rejoinder from French sources contradicting this (i.e. X makes no mention of this in his 1843 account while Y directly refutes it, claiming . . .). We cannot make direct comparisons with the source or introduced the synthesis above into the article as it is original research (however I think I would be good to put this conversation on the talk page). Do you think this is a good plan? If so let me know and I'll make the necessary changes to the article soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your attention. I wholeheartedly agree that some of my remarks above cannot be used within the framework of Wikipedia, to which we must abide; I should have made it clearer that I mentionned them here to justify the degree of interest I find in the comparison of French and British sources in this case, and to describe the methodology with which I located and understood some of the material. I would certainly not consider my speculations suitable inside an article.

As you suggest, exposing the separate narratives is probably the best way to proceed for two parallel and irreconciliable viewpoints on a same event. Copying this discussion to the talk page of the article is a nice touch.

Thank you again for your time and for your excellent ideas! Rama (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

You may not have noticed, but I've started a review of your article at Talk:Battle of the Raz de Sein/GA1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kriegsmarine admirals, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Hey, I saw your comments on the first GA-review for Aircraft carrier and I was interested in cleaning up the page over the next while in some capacity. I noticed you made a comment about suggestions for finding sources and was interested in taking up the offer. Did you have any ideas in particular? I was thinking about a Google search and a trip to the library, but any others are welcome. Many thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of the Nile know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 21, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 21, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Battle of the Nile was fought between the British and French navies at Aboukir Bay on the Egyptian coast from 1 to 3 August 1798. It ended in victory for the British under Horatio Nelson (pictured). It was the climax of a Mediterranean naval campaign during the previous three months, as a large French convoy sailed to Alexandria carrying an expeditionary force under Napoleon Bonaparte, pursued by Nelson and his fleet. After the French army had landed in Egypt, the French fleet anchored in what its commander believed was a formidable defensive position. When the British fleet arrived, Nelson ordered an immediate attack on both sides of the French position simultaneously. Trapped in a crossfire, the leading French warships were battered into surrender. The centre initially repelled the attack but was defeated after renewed assault from British reinforcements. The battle reversed the strategic situation in the Mediterranean and encouraged other European countries to turn against France. Bonaparte's army was trapped and was later defeated at the Siege of Acre. Nelson was made Baron Nelson and proclaimed a hero across Europe, and his captains were also highly praised. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

naval action
Thank you for quality articles on naval battles such as Battle of the Nile and Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown, and their people, such as Eric Gascoigne Robinson, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 640th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. January (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

Hi, Jackyd101. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your great contributions to Wikipedia. I am translating some of your articles into Spanish and I have to say they are top-class. Nonetheless, while trying to translate «Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile» I came across with a problem. In the bibliography you enlist two of the volumes written by William James, but in the references you don't specify to which one it refers each citation. I'm sorry if this is an inconvenient for you, but could you please tell me which volume they refer to?

I apologise for my English, but it is not my mother tongue. Thank you very much in advance, Rubpe¹⁹ 12:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Rubpe, ¿com estas? Tengo un poco espanol y soy muy feliz porque tu eres traducando la pagina! Now I have demonstrated how much worse my Spanish is than your excellent English, there was one reference to volume one which was marked as such, all the others were to volume two. However, it was a bit confusing and I have therefore added the references properly. Many thanks!Jackyd101 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything can be improved with practise... (and your articles do nothing but good to my English). :)) Thank you very, very much for the edition and I'm also happy that you are. Greetings, Rubpe¹⁹ 19:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupting you again. I finally completed the translation of Battle of the Nile into Spanish. I have to say it is a perfect article and that it took me quite a lot of time to complete it. I'm currently revising it and trying to revise the sources. Nevertheless, I found one problem, similar to the mentioned above. I think that the pages in the references don't match this edition of James' book. It may be because they changed the pages when they digitalized the book, but now I can't verify if they are okay and, more important, I can't add more references. I would appreciate it if you could help me solve this problem. Thanks in advance, Rubpe¹⁹ 10:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the same problem with the same book in other two articles, which are Action of 10 November 1808 and Action of 6 April 1809. Greetings, Rubpe¹⁹ 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the far mists of time (i.e. 2006), you created the article HMS Laforey (1913), which I have recently been expanding. Can you remember what you used as a source for the ship's loss? I cannot find anything that isn't a Wikipedia mirror that gives some of the details in the article (i.e. taking place in convoy escort with Laertes and striking the mine on the return ship, etc. What sources I have found are inconsistant, and don't seem even to agree on the date of Laforey's sinking.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

As you are a previous editor of City of Adelaide (1864), you may be interested in the Style Proposal on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Action of 15 November 1810 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 15 November 1810 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Action of 15 November 1810 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raid on Genoa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raid on Genoa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Raid on Genoa for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Action of 12 May 1796 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 12 May 1796 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 12 May 1796 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raid on Genoa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raid on Genoa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 12 May 1796 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Action of 12 May 1796 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 24 March 1811 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 24 March 1811 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 10 April 1795 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 10 April 1795 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor/archive1?— Rod ^talk 21:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Action of 24 October 1793 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 24 October 1793 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 24 October 1793 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 24 October 1793 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Action of 24 October 1793 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 21 October 1794 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 21 October 1794 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Action of 16 October 1799 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 16 October 1799 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 16 October 1799 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 16 October 1799 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Action of 16 October 1799 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]