Archives

Archive 1

Welcome...

Hello, Pendright, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Cuprum17 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Some pages you might like to check out are:

• Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia — main welcome page.
• Wikipedia:Introduction -- Wikipedia introduction page.
• Wikipedia:Tutorial -- Wikipedia editing tutorial.
• Wikipedia:Questions — the "where to ask questions" directory.
• Wikipedia:FAQ — quick answers to the most common questions.
• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page — a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
• Wikipedia:Help desk — where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User — where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.
• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual — Thorough and intuitive guide to Wikipedia. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a

Thanks for asking me about redirects. You can read more about what that all means at WP:Redirect. However the specific thing that prompted me to undo a minor change you'd made to Farragut State Park was this: the article on David Farragut is actually titled David Farragut with no middle name or initial. As it happens, clicking on David G. Farragut gets you to the right place, but only because some editor created a "redirect" forwarding the browser on to the official title of the article. I removed the middle initial to avoid the redirect and link straight to the article.

Looking over current Wikipedia policy, however, I discovered that I would actually be the one considered in the wrong here. You can read at WP:NOTBROKEN that the current consensus is redirects aren't a big deal, and editors are discouraged from making these cosmetic changes. So if you have a compelling reason to want to refer to Admiral Farragut as "David G. Farragut" that's totally fine. On the other hand, if it doesn't matter one way or the other I continue to see value in linking to exact article names.

Hope that helped, and I certainly learned something new today too. -McGhiever (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@McGhiever: Hello again: although our paths have not crossed in several years, you came to mind on my visit to the Farragut State Park this past August. Actually, I received my Navy boot camp training there in 1943, and this was my first trip there since then. It’s a much different looking place than it was 75 years ago, but still as beautiful as ever. It was one of those rare visits that not everyone gets to experience. Anyway, I hope I haven’t bored you with my post. Regards! Pendright (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, Pendright! If you have an interest in the days of Merchant Sail, here's lots of material to put wind in your sails. You'll enjoy the freedom of the seas on this topic, as most folks are writing on naval vessels. You can contact me at my talk page. Fair winds and following seas! Djembayz (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pendright, and welcome to WikiProject Ships! Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! Djembayz (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djembayz (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your peer review page was in the wrong place, I've created it for you at Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Mahan (DD-364)/archive1 and added it to the Military History Project's (MILHIST) "todo" list at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. I was surprised to see you didn't get immediate help at the talk pages for the SHIPS project ... you may want to make future requests on the talk page for MILHIST, at WT:MILHIST. Sorry we're slow getting you started, but you should see some very helpful feedback appear at your peer review within 2 weeks or so (people tend to do them in the order they show up). Also, I see you want to participate in the Guild of Copyeditors; our next copyediting drive starts July 1, I hope you'll join us. WT:GOCE is the talk page where you can ask for help with Guild matters. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, Pendright! Here's how I learned about writing articles for Wikipedia.

I'm writing out these links for your reference in case you need them, as it took me a long time to discover them. You don't need to learn how to do everything here at one time. You'll find that many (and possibly most) people pick out a few things to do and specialize.

If you need help, the easiest thing to do is ask someone, or search the Help contents.

The Bookshelf for Wikipedians has videos that are good for beginners, and tips for more advanced users.

(If your specialty is writing style and copyediting, by all means feel free to skim over what's written below, and simply plow ahead. You'll find plenty of choppy, opinionated articles with potential to develop into beautifully crafted, neutral prose worthy of Encyclopædia Britannica, awaiting your copyediting and addition of reliable sources.)

• First stop for US Navy ships: DANFS. It's one of the public domain resources that forms the backbone of many articles, and establishes their notability. One way to start editing is by pasting in public domain text like DANFS to start an article, and adding a link to DANFS to acknowledge the source. Eventually you'll discover a shortcut, the DANFS template, via the WikiProject Ships template page.

• Next you look around for how to add subtitles, and standard ways to create sections, which are based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style. After finding naming conventions for ships via the WikiProject Ships page, then you discover, why, there's a standard way to set up articles about ships, and naming conventions for battles and military units too.

• For some reason, the experienced users get all excited about articles by newbies and start exclaiming "There are no inline citations!" rather than adding the inline citations themselves. Don't worry about this. Eventually you will either not care if people paste little "inline citations needed" banners at the tops of your pages, or you'll start clicking around and discover the Citation template page, and cut and paste citation information from it. (Eventually, I got frustrated with trying to type in all that code for citations, and downloaded some great add-on programs, GT ProveIt and Zotero, which made citations much easier).

Then, someone at a Wikipedia Meetup told me, "Hey, did you spot that little link above the edit box that says "Cite" and click on the icons it brings up? That's way easier."

• And finally, style. It isn't necessary to go back to school in journalism, history, or law, or to work through all of User:Tony's tutorials on improving your writing style to write for Wikipedia (although any of these things could be helpful if you aspire to upgrade your articles to Good Article or Featured Article status). It's perfectly fine to stick with writing basic, factual articles in encyclopedic style, from a Neutral Point of View, abbreviated WP:NPOV. You don't have to do everything yourself, or only write complete articles from scratch. Small efforts make a difference here too.

• The WikiProject(s) that correspond to your article-- in this case, WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Ships-- are quite active, and you are likely to get responses from members with more specific suggestions.

Djembayz (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright. I thought I'd drop by and offer some advice on the article you've been working on. Since it's a ship that saw action in World War II, Jurgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945 is a must-have source. It tends to have details that are not included in others. And since this was an American ship, Robert Cressman's The Official Chronology of the US Navy in World War II is an equally invaluable resource. And Ted Roscoe's United States Destroyer Operations in World War II should be useful as well. All of these books have previews on Google Books (which can be a very useful way to track down books that mention the ship - I use it quite extensively), so you should be able to pick up some details from them. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad I've been able to help you out. I'll keep that you've got Roscoe in mind if I ever need it for an article, thanks. Oh, and something else that occurred to me: you can get good information on the characteristics and construction data for most ships in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, and the volumes that cover WWI and WWII ships are scanned into Google Books (though you can only access a partial preview). Best of luck with Mahan. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy Pendright! You're quite close to launch with USS Mahan. Formatted the references so you can cut and paste them in, just add page numbers where it says [in process]. I could try a little copyediting for you, but won't get to this for a couple days (tomorrow is a photo - meetup) ... Will check back in then. Over and out, Djembayz (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy again. I've done some minor copyediting, and I'd say you're good to go for references. A simple way to do references would be like this:

<ref> Brown, David (1990). Warship Losses in World War Two. Arms and Armour. p. 396 </ref>

You add the author-title information, and the page numbers, inbetween the tags <ref> and </ref>

Let me know how this goes. Djembayz (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you again! I'll take a look at it, may not get to this for a day or two. Djembayz (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've got a solid basis for a Good Article here if you want to invest some more time and effort in the article. The biggest problem that I see is that very little of the ship's specifications in the infobox are cited or described which is a necessity for meeting the GA criteria. You can get by with just citing the data in the infobox, but I strongly prefer a short descriptive paragraph (with cites) as I think that conveys the information to the reader better. Here's an example of one from one of my own destroyer articles:

Gallant displaced 1,350 long tons (1,370 t) at standard load and 1,883 long tons (1,913 t) at deep load. The ship had an overall length of 323 feet (98.5 m), a beam of 33 feet (10.1 m) and a draught of 12 feet 5 inches (3.8 m). She was powered by Parsons geared steam turbines, driving two shafts, which developed a total of 34,000 shaft horsepower (25,000 kW) and gave a maximum speed of 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph). Steam for the turbines was provided by three Admiralty 3-drum water-tube boilers. Gallant carried a maximum of 470 long tons (480 t) of fuel oil that gave her a range of 5,530 nautical miles (10,240 km; 6,360 mi) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph). The ship's complement was 137 officers and men in peacetime,<ref name=w78>Whitley, pp. 107–08</ref> but in increased to 146 in wartime.<ref>English, p. 89</ref>

The ship mounted four 45-calibre 4.7-inch (120 mm) Mark IX guns in single mounts. For anti-aircraft defence Gallant had two quadruple Mark I mounts for the 0.5 inch Vickers Mark III machine gun. She was fitted with two above-water quadruple torpedo tube mounts for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes.^[1] One rail and two depth charge throwers were fitted; 20 depth charges were originally carried, but this increased to 35 shortly after the war began.<ref>English, p. 141</ref>

Feel free to copy-paste it to your own article if you like it; just be sure to put in Mahan's data and the appropriate cites. The whole thing is at HMS Gallant if you're curious how it all fits together. You can discuss any weapon or electronics upgrades in either a separate section in the description or integrate it into the main service section, in chronological order. I'd also recommend mentioning all refits and overhauls as I like to give the reader a sense of how often a ship was available.

The other issue that I see is that you rely very heavily on DANFS for your ship's operational career and hardly use any other sources for her wartime service. DANFS is absolutely essential for USN peacetime activities unless you've got a book written about your ship to use as a source, but it's not that great for wartime stuff. DANFS tells you what battles she participated in and I strongly recommend getting books that cover those battles from the naval side of things and seeing what you can discover about Mahan's part in those battles. The problem with writing destroyer articles is that they're nowhere near as well covered by the history books as are the larger ships and sourcing may be a problem. The best sources that I've found are Rohwer, used in my article in Gallant, which can be used to document the ship's presence in any battle, and books published on her class, if any. I don't think that I've seen any on the Mahans, but I have seen ones on the Gearings/Sumners and a couple of other US wartime classes.

If you have any questions about this whole process, I'm happy to help. Just give me a yell on my talk page. BTW, I did upgrade the assessment of the article once you cited the bit about the battle stars.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move all of the commissioning and construction details out of the lede; I often put them at the beginning of a renamed "Construction and service" section. Remember that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. So say that she was built in the 1930 and initially served in the Atlantic Fleet before transferring to the Pacific. It's usually a good idea to give a list of battles or campaigns in which she participated in the lede rather than the current list of duties/assignments, but keep it at the broadest level rather than provide details. I'd also say that Mahan was disabled by the kamikaze attack and then abandoned and scuttled by American forces.
• Most of the first para of the Design section is better suited for the class article, IMO.
• The second para could be moved to the general characteristics section, but I don't feel strongly either way.
• and gave the maximum speed of would read better as "that gave the ship her maximum speed of"
• carried the maximum of "a" maximum of
• Not "the" range, "a" range and "a" complement, not "the" complement. What's up with these?
• Link fire control system. No need to show the abbreviation if you're not going to use it later. Same for the torpedo FCS.
• No hyphen here five-5"/38 caliber guns You need also to link caliber and to call them dual-purpose guns, with the appropriate link.
• water cooled should be hyphenated because it's a compound adjective.
• Don't care what other ships of the class received, only what Mahan was refitted with. If her exact AA outfit isn't known then say so while providing the general info.

More later (if you still want it!).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, Pendright! You've been chipping, painting, and swabbing the decks on that article, by golly. Give me a little time to check out a few of those books and see if there's anything I can add for you ... We have a WikiSalon evening coming up next week here in DC. Perhaps one of our local Wikimedia DC folks can pitch in on a shakedown cruise to prove up that your article is shipshape! Djembayz (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Mahan-class destroyer at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Folklore1 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left some notes on the talk page of the article about some additional improvements that would be helpful. Folklore1 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mahan-class destroyer 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 Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mahan-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mahan-class destroyer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for USS Mahan (DD-364) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Looks like a GA to me. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the message. There's absolutely no rush, take your time and enjoy your vacation. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I copied your post to the GA review page and responded there. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Congratulations on successful nomination of the Mahan-class destroyer article. Keep up the good work, and I'd like to urge you to contribute more in GA department - both improving articles and reviewing other nominations. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly managed to apply criteria as listed in WP:GACR in your nomination, and I have no doubt you would be able to apply the criteria to a review. MOS could be a sticking point though since one has to bear in mind usual formatting issues which crop up in such articles. As far as prose review is concerned, it's a matter of common sense - if the reader is left with questions rather than answers there's something missing. I don't mean to pressure you into reviewing, but I thought to nudge you into direction of considering such a move. Cheerrs--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mahan-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mahan-class destroyer for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate getting an attaboy from a veteran of the Mahan. I've been a lifelong USN enthusiast and plan to retire in a couple of years and do more Wiki editing. Do you know who is coordinating the destroyer articles? I'd like to take some of the bare-bones articles and make them more useful. I do have Friedman's book, but don't really have the inclination to write long articles. RobDuch (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Mahan (DD-364) 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 ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Mahan (DD-364) 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:USS Mahan (DD-364) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Mahan (DD-364) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Mahan (DD-364) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 28 January 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 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

Mahan-class destroyer now has 3 supports at A-class, and will probably be promoted within a day or two. If you'd like to move on to FAC so that this fine article can get its day on Wikipedia's Main Page, I can help with that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your kind offer of help. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a look after it gets promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's promoted. Next: there are a few things Rupert mentioned that I didn't respond to, let me know (here or on my talk page) when you're finished, and let me know if you need help:

• • I found and fixed a few instances of where ship names weren't in italics, please check if I missed any;
    • Checked the text and did not find any names of ships without italics. I added italics to a couple of names in the Ships in class table. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked a few myself, but where possible, if you mention an action at a location, I think the convention is to include the link to the battle/campaign article rather than the location, for instance Battle of Balikpapan (1945) rather than just Balikpapan;
    • Your point is well taken regarding battles vs. locations.Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her" - do we know the name of the troopship? If possible, please add it here;
    • H.M.A.S. Duntroon - added to Perkins section Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A court of inquiry found the captain, the navigator, and the officer of the deck at fault for the collision" - were these Perkins' crew, or the troopship's? [I guessed "troopship" and added that - Dank]
    • Good question: Roscoe, the source, does not say. Jurgen Rohwer records the event but is silent on details. A reading of the envent by Roscoe could lead one to assume he is referring to the troopship. I hesitate making this assumption. Perhaps the statement should be deleted. I removed Dank's guess it was the troopship. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Photograph of the wreckage of the USS Downes, hit by bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306547.jpg": if possible, this image should cropped to reduce the effect of the whitespace. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I will have a crack;
    • I could use some help in cropping the Downes photo. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • wording: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her." For me, the word rammed makes it sound intentional, so I'd suggest rewording slightly. For instance, perhaps this might work: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when she collided with an Australian troopship." Either that or "when an Australian troopship accidentally rammed her";
  • "when rammed by an Australian troopship" (as above, probably use "collided with", or similar).
    • Substituted collided for rammed - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of AustralianRupert's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it! I'll let you know if I need any help. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ready, I'll create the nomination page at FAC. They'll want a brief nomination statement from you ... the one you posted at the A-class review would be fine. If the image hasn't been cropped yet, we can do that later. If you like, it might help to mention your wartime service. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Rupert’s response, I’m ready. Regarding my wartime service, to what extent should I expound on it? As you know, I’m an old novice and likely to need a bit more handholding. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of cropping that photo and adding it to the article - I had meant to do it back when I reviewed the list at ACR but lost track of it. Best of luck at FAC, Pendright! Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for your support. Pendright (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the new FAC page. I quoted you from your userpage and the A-class review, and did a little copyediting. Make any changes you like, and sign it. Anchors aweigh! - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing ... some bozo (it might have been me) started a discussion at WT:FAC concerning our WP:SEASON guideline, so it might help, in cases where you can find out the month, to replace "spring" and "summer" by the actual month that things happened. If your sources don't give the month, don't worry about it for now. I'm tying up the article at the moment but I'll be done with copyediting soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing all the heavy lifting! Pendright (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Btw, some of my copyediting today doesn't really "improve" the article much, I'm just trying to anticipate where the flak may come from at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For fighting for freedom. God bless. All the best, Matty.007 15:06, 8 June 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 at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food 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: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

Hello, Pendright. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Someone typed "HELD TO NEXT WEEK" and hid your Featured Article from this week's Signpost, I'm not sure why ... I guess they have something special planned next week. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 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

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]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:10, 4 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 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]

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) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		2014 "Military History Newcomer of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for showing "great dedication" since joining our project, and for "taking a brace of articles through GA, A, and finally FA-class reviews", I award you this Golden Wiki. Congratulations! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Pendright. Thanks for all your contributions to Milhist over the last year! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations also from me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can say this was a very popular win -- great work this past year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, well deserved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 25 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

Hi Pendright, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle, and I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview with all the nominees for the 2014 Military History Newcomer Award which we're hoping to run in the January edition. If you're interested in participating, I'd appreciate it if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2015/Interview by 11 January. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Pendright. Good news! A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Thank you. Pendright (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

fine-tuned USS Mahan
Thank you, experienced member of the US Navy, for quality articles on their fleet such as Mahan-class destroyer and USS Mahan (DD-364), for precise and efficient copy-editing ("grammar and punctuation" and "fine tune"), and for taking the time to thank for help, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1094 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for WAVES, "the United States Naval Reserve ... The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From one Navy vet to another, congratulations on your writeup in The Signpost. And a salute to your WWII service aboard USS Mahan. — Brianhe (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - What a fascinating story about how you got involved with Wikipedia! It is very inspiring and I am so pleased that you are a fellow Wikipedian. KConWiki (talk) 02:30, 23 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

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 29 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 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

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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I 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 the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I 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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania 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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I 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 review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I 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 the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi George! The ed17 here as part of my job. I sent you an email last week at the address I used last January. Did you receive it? Thank you! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No! New address: (Redacted) Pendright (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good! I hid the email above so you won't get spam, and you'll have a message in a moment. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With this edit you deleted part of the previous requester's signature. I've fixed it. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: 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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cadet Nurse Corps at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:19, 8 October 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: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cadet Nurse Corps 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 ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cadet Nurse Corps 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:Cadet Nurse Corps for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Definitely Good Article material. A really interesting subject! Thanks for your work. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. Cadet Nurse Corps, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 22:11, 7 November 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: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cadet Nurse Corps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cadet Nurse Corps (recruiting poster pictured), established during World War II, influenced the way in which nurses would be educated and trained in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cadet Nurse Corps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 December 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: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I 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 review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Pendright. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Pendright. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The article WAVES 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:WAVES for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2016 (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: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 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 SPARS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loran. 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) 10:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

}

Your pictures have been added to the article SPARS with help by User:Illegitimate Barrister. He has helped me several times in the past with problem downloads. You may wish to rearrange pictures in the article to suit yourself as he wasn't sure where you needed them to display. Article is certainly including much more than when you started on it. Thank you for your interest in the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have assessed the SPARS article, which you have essentially rewritten, as a B-class article. The article result is a testament to your perseverance and determination to totally rewrite an article that is now well organized and well referenced. For your efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coast Guard Star
		I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your rewrite of the Wikipedia article SPARS. The article result is a testament to your perseverance and determination to totally rewrite an article that is now well organized and well referenced. For your efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2016 (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: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Pendright:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article SPARS has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, in relation to the GA nom for SPARs, there is a typo in the code you are trying to use. The correct code is ((subst:GAN|subtopic=Warfare)) Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2016 (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: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Tucker (DD-374), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (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 Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Mahan (DD-102) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/mahan-i.html}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...on your successful GA SPARS article. Are you going for an A Class on it? Thanks again for improving the article, it is something that can now educate about the SPAR program rather than just a few random facts that the original article included. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for USS Tucker (DD-374) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice, neatly written article. I just have two concerns:

1) The last sentence of the section USS Tucker (DD-374)#Design is ungrammatical, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it.

2) I notice that you have used the day-month-year date format. I know that date format is the left to the preference of the writer of an article, but according to MOS:TIES,

an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation.

Since the USS Tucker was a United States ship, you might consider changing the dates to the US date format, month-day-year. If you wish, I'd be glad to make the changes.  – Corinne (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright -- I saw you fixed the ungrammatical sentence I had pointed out. Now, it is a grammatically correct sentence, but I'm wondering if it could be improved a bit. This sentence is, of course, additional information about – almost an example of – the "new generation of land-based propulsion machinery" mentioned in the previous sentence. Here is the sentence as it is worded now:

• The boiler pressure was increased to 600 PSI (pounds per square inch), the high-pressure turbines had double reduction gears, and the machinery ran faster and more efficiently than previous destroyer designs.

The way it is worded now, it seems to describe a process, with three parts, or steps: X, Y, and Z. However, the third part is actually the result of the first two parts: Because of X and Y, Z. What do you think of something like this? --

With boiler pressure increased to 600 PSI (pounds per square inch) and double reduction gears in the high-pressure turbines, the machinery ran faster and more efficiently than in previous destroyers.  – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this will work as well, but it strikes me the reader is better served when the turbines are mentioned before the reduction gears. I say this because one could delete reduction gears from the sentence without really hurting it. Reduction gears are a component of the turbines, not the other way around. In any case, I’ve had my say, so now you can make the call. Thanks for discussing the matter with me

As for your second concern, this format is generally used for US military articles (especially ships) that I’ve come across. I’m aware of your MOS reference, but I believe Wikipedia's Manual of Style for dates and numbers has equal or greater weight. I prefer the format used in the article and will probably continue to use it. For my parrt, I don't see it as much of an issue. Thanks, though! Pendright (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; the date format can stay as it is. I want to assure you I have no sense of ownership over the wording in the article. I'm happy to work with you to come up with the most accurate and well worded sentence. After reading your comment, I understand it a bit better. Before I attempt another wording, may I ask you whether the increase in boiler pressure capacity is a direct result of the double reduction gears and the high pressure turbines? If so, I will try to show this relationship.  – Corinne (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is not my hang-up, it’s having served aboard two Navy destroyers. One was the same class as Tucker, but that was a very long time ago. The Tucker machinery worked like this: the high-pressure boilers produced the steam power; this energy was fed to and rotated the turbines, propelling the ship along its way. The double reduction gears (within the turbines) made it possible for smaller turbines (like Tucker) to run faster and be more efficient. In hindsight, had I thought a little more about the sentence we would not be having this exchange. Sorry! Pendright (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider using your own wording, "made it possible for smaller turbines (like those in USS Tucker) to run faster and be more efficient". Regarding the rest of the sentence, there are different ways to word it; a lot depends upon what you want to emphasize or highlight, which probably should be what, exactly, was new (in the "new generation of land-based propulsion machinery"). How about this?

• Boiler pressures capable of reaching 600 PSI (pounds per square inch) powered high-pressure turbines with double reduction gears, making it possible for smaller turbines (like those in USS Tucker) to run faster and more efficiently than previous destroyer designs.

If you don't want to mention "smaller turbines", then perhaps:

• Boiler pressures capable of reaching 600 PSI (pounds per square inch) powered high-pressure turbines with double reduction gears, making it possible for the ship's turbines to run faster and more efficiently than previous destroyer designs.  – Corinne (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are well done, thank you. I prefer the second one. May I assume you’ll make the change? Thank you for going that extra mile. I hope our paths cross again. Pendright (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2016 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Tucker (DD-374) 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright, I hope you are well but I notice you haven't edited for nearly a month and there has been no activity on the USS Tucker article. I have placed the GA review for USS Tucker on hold for another week but if there is no progress I will have to close it. Should you renominate it for a GA again after attending to the issues I noted in the review, I will be happy to review it for you. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from vacation and will begin working on your recommendations. Thanks for the review. Pendright (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Tucker (DD-374) 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:USS Tucker (DD-374) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2016 (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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Tucker (DD-374) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Tucker (DD-374) 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...on your Good Article - USS Tucker (DD-374)... Cuprum17 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2016 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank 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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Pendright. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I 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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution 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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line 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 review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

While I visited your user page to re-familiarize myself with you I did the math and you have to be at least 92 years old. I recalled you being a Navy veteran of World War II, but after the math, it really struck home. Thank you for your service to our country, and I mean that from the very bottom of my heart. I would love to know more about your rank or rating and the timeframe you served on USS Mahan and USS Cone. Hope you have a good Memorial Day weekend. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arithmetic is right on; I was born in 1925. I went aboard Mahan in April 1944 at the Mare Island Shipyard in Vallejo, California. Soon after, we steamed to Pearl Harbor. From Pearl, Mahan operated n the South Pacific in a variety of assignments. In October 1944, Mahan participated in the landing at Leyte – the first effort of the war to regain control of the Philippine Islands. Operating there until December 1944, when some Japanese Kamikazes did Mahan in. It took us two months to get back stateside, arriving in San Pedro, California, in early February 1945. We received a $100.00 for loss of personal items along with a new seabag. A month of leave and it was off to Norfolk, Virginia, and pre-commissioning school in preparation for duty aboard Cone. In early August we were shipped to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Cone was put into commission in August 1945; about the time the Japanese threw in the towel. Anyway, the shakedown cruise was to the Cribinean for a couple of months. Then, we returned to the Brooklyn Navy. Right after Christmas 1945, we sailed to England, and spent the next few months cruising the English Channel; visiting such places as Portsmouth, the homeport of the British Navy. By March 1946, I had accumulated enough points to get out. I was shipped to New York and then to Great Lakes. They sewed the Ruptured Duck on my uniform in April 1946 and my infamous Navy career was history. As for my rate, I was a lowly Firemen 2nd Class, earning my keep below deck firing the steam boilers. You probably got far more then you bargained for, but thanks for asking. Thanks too for your kind words and for your long service. I hope Memorial Day weekend was a pleasant one.Pendright (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I can relate to a fellow snipe... I ended my Coast Guard career as a Chief Machinery Technician in 2007 when I turned 60 and had to retire but I started my CG career as a Storekeeper Third Class in the Petty Officer Direct Program of the Coast Guard Reserve in 1989. I got a direct rating as a third class because I had a college degree in accounting that I got on the GI Bill after I got out of the Army in 1968. A Machinery Technician (MK) is the Coast Guard combined ratings of the Navy's Engineman (Motor Machinist Mate to you War II vets) and Machinist Mate ratings. I lateraled ratings from Storekeeper Second Class to Machinery Technician Second Class in 1994. I had to do all the practical factors and pass all the tests up to and including Second Class in order to advance further. I got all this done by 1997 and passed the tests for MK1 in 1999. I made Chief in 2003 while serving on active duty during the Iraq War. My first military service was during the Vietnam War with the Army where I served as Specialist Five (kind of like a sergeant but without the responsibilities) photo laboratory technician. I worked in a military intelligence detachment that processed aerial photography and then did photo interpretation of the photos to support the troops deployed in the field. I served 26 months in Vietnam.

Thanks for trading stories with me...and I salute your service aboard the Mahan, it sounds like you saw more action than I did. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the account of your service as a fireman, you have my respect sir. I can't imagine the heat you endured in those main engineering spaces. I think one watch would be enough sweat for an entire life :) Thank you for your service! --Hammersoft (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I can tell you, we polished-off a lot of salt pills. Thanks for dropping by! Pendright (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your tincans' boilers were oil fired, weren't they? I can't imagine serving on a coal fired ship. The heat would be bad enough on an oil fired plant. Tincan life; the real Navy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hammersoft: Yes, oil was the fuel used to generate the steam. Interestingly, even in the tropics, the oil had to be pre-heated in order for it to flow. Arguably, in its time, the destroyer may have been the most versatile member of the fleet. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good lord. Any idea what the viscosity of the oil was? Must have been like molasses. Though, maybe it was more a matter of getting it closer to flash point before getting into the combustion chamber, so that it would burn more efficiently? Yes, the destroyers have long been the backbone of the navy. They might not have had 14" or 16" rifles, but that aside, there wasn't anything the capital ships could do that a destroyer couldn't do. I think of Surigao Straight; it was the destroyers that really wreaked havoc. The battle line was really just mopping up. There were so many engagements throughout the war where destroyers and destroyer escorts (or, in some cases, especially for the IJN, the lack thereof) were pivotal to the outcome of the battle. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2018 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Pendright. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pendright – I have completed the copy-edit you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I hope you find it satisfactory. A few items:

1) I left two "clarification needed" tags. You'll see my hidden notes right after the tags in edit mode. If you need help wording it so that it is clear, just explain it to me and I'll work on it, or suggest alternatives. After you've resolved the issue, you can remove both the tag and the comment.

2) I changed a bulleted list of the women in the highest administrative positions to sentence form because it is my understanding from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists, second paragraph, that lists are deprecated and prose is preferred. If you really prefer the list, I'll be glad to change it back.

3) In the material near the end, quotes from women in the WR, I fixed one or two spelling errors (typos?) and changed hyphens to spaced en-dashes. If these are quotes, fixing the punctuation is not generally a problem, but if the words were misspelled in the original source, perhaps they should be changed back and the word "sic" in single square brackets: [sic] placed after each misspelled word. I'll let you decide what you want to do here.

4) For stand-alone quotes, I changed the formatting from a bulleted item to a block quote using the "quote" template. I think it looks much better, and it's what we usually use. Well, that's all. Nice article! Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the competent copy-edit of the MCWR article. I’ve resolved the clarification issues, agree with your changes and the spelling errors were mine. Thanks again! Pendright (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2017 (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 looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I 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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography 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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution 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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Pendright. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve 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:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2017 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The article United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was a lot of hard work, but I just noticed you passed the GA review for the United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve article. Thank you for your contribution to the military history section of Wikipedia. Cheers!! Cuprum17 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made some changes to Central Link and High Line that were grammatically incorrect. The indefinite article is generally preferred when describing railroads, because an operator or carrier may have several railways or spurs that can be described with a single word. For example, the New York Central Railroad had several spurs on Manhattan's West Side, one of which became the High Line; your use of "the railroad spur" is misleading to readers. SounderBruce 06:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Central Link, while "the University of Washington" would be grammatically correct, "the University of Washington [station]" is not. It is also one of several light rail lines planned for the Seattle region, so using "a light rail line" is more appropriate. SounderBruce 06:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Interpretations are most always open to argument, but to do this here would be impolite and serve no useful purpose. Instead, let me just say that my edits were intended to make a good article better, nothing more, nothing less. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2018 (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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (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 looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Mahan-class destroyer, USS Mahan (DD-364), and WAVES. MilHistBot (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful ACR on the article WAVES! I hate to bring this up, but maybe now is the time for SPARS...just kidding! You did good and I'm proud of your accomplishment. Cuprum17 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuprum17: Thanks and your thought is a good one. Take care! Pendright (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2018 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2018 (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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I 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 review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs 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 review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (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: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	For your tireless improving! Dmartin969 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (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 looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I 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 review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Pendright. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (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 looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Just saw that you completed the FAC for WAVES. Keep up the good work. I know it took some time to do it and you have my complete admiration for your "stick-to-it-ness" Cuprum17 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 11, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on this TFA, Pendright! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2019 (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: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

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: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

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 looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I