User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Greetings (and some Milhist business)

First, happy new year!

Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?

Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Renewed discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi,

I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area in the past. So I concluded that you might be interested to know that two editors currently push for a change in the article structure that is in conflict with the standing consensus resulting out of our past discussion.

The consensus was to include the EU entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). — Whereas the change that is currently pushed would result in moving the EU entry to the very end of the article, even after the references/sources table. The result can be seen here: [1].

The standing consensus was not my favorite solution, as I would like to include the EU into the very list (unnumbered), but I content myself with the standing compromise. Whether you agree to or oppose the change, I strongly feel that the article's structure should not be changed without a proper discussion and maybe even a new vote before changing the standing compromise. You might want to give your point of view in the current discussion at

Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area#Positioning_of_EU_.26_Antarctica_etc.

Cheers and take care, MikeZ (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even a short comment or re-installations are very much needed EU inclusion in lists. It sucks, but its very much appreciated. Late Happy New Year Lear 21 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Romanian front

La mulţi ani! May I ask you to check out a few new articles by User:Harrypotter (along with some of his other recent contributions): Front (Russian Empire), 6th Army (Russian Empire), Romanian Front (Russian Empire), Northern Front (Russian Empire)? Surely there are existing articles that already cover this stuff, right? - Biruitorul Talk 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take your word for it. - Biruitorul Talk 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Op Cobra

It's actually next-but-one on my pending list, but I'd be happy to bump it up. I've just (10 minutes ago) finished copyediting on Op Brevity, so your timing's excellent ;) EyeSerenetalk 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read the talk page as regards division commanders. There's no consensus, just a bunch of different suggestions. The rationale that *no* division commanders would be mentioned was never followed, even by the editor who offered that rationale for removing John Wood. I proposed adding some of the more important ones back in on Feb 19. There was no response. DMorpheus (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to add: I did not fully remove Bayerlein either; I took out some mentions of his name where I felt it added nothing to the article. He's still in there, just not as many times. DMorpheus (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST

Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

For prolific work on – Operation Epsom, Operation Cobra and Battle of Berlin – promoted to A-Class between September 2008 and January 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cobra photo

Hey man,

I have just updated the template on this photo (File:Cobra Coutances.jpg) for you in prep of the of the inevertable drive for FAC. Do you have a referance number off the website for the photo or the authors name, as these should also be added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look around the US Archives website but there is no option to view as many photo, that i can see, like there is on the IWM website. So i cant find the photo there - which shouldnt be that much of a problem.
If you speak and can write French could you take a quick look around this website: http://www.cr-basse-normandie.fr and see if you can spot it?
Otherwise i think we should change the information on the photo page to reflect the website were it was found and state the author as unknown.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Guess we could just change the author part to unknown and leave it as it is?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Got the new message, i looked through there archive website last time around and couldnt find anything on there either. I think the best bet for the photos is to provide links to the websites they came from. They should still be out of copyright due to the likeyhood they were taken by army photographers. As for the maps i dont know what to do, is the guy who uploaded them still active?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

pocket intro

How about the below for a quick starter? A couple of spelling mistakes fixed, grammar tweaked and pruned to be more about the pocket and a little less about the background.

The Falaise pocket was the near encirclement and destruction of two German armies during August 1944 by the Allied armies, as part of the larger Battle of Normandy, during World War II.

Following Operation Cobra, the American successful breakout offensive, rapid advances were made to the south, southeast and into Brittany. On 7 August, despite protests from Günther von Kluge—the overall commander of German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) on the Western Front, Adolf Hitler ordered Operation Lüttich to commence, a counterattack to be conducted by the remnants of four insufficiently equipped panzer divisions. As expected by the Allied commanders, the operation failed leaving the committed German force in disarray. Following this failed counterattack, the 21st Army Group launched its first attempt to capture Falaise, codenamed Operation Totalize, conducted by II Canadian Corps. This operation did not achieve its ultimate objective and a further operation was launched to capture the city, codenamed Operation Tractable. These allied attacks enveloped the Germany Army Group between the towns of Argentan, Trun, Vimoutiers and Chambois, near Falaise.

By the evening of 21 August the combined Allied forces rendezvoused with each other at key points, effectively closing the ocket and trapping 50,000 Germans inside. The closure of the Falaise pocket represented the end of the Battle of Normandy and a decisive defeat for Nazi Germany. Two days later Paris was liberated and Operation Overlord finally ended.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Falaise

Ok, will do ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jassy–Kishinev Offensive

This is not the first time you make a unilateral article move without a proposal of any kind. This time, however you did it against established consensus and used a counterfactual argument - the term used by Glantz is Iassy-Kishinev Operation, not "Iasi–Kishinev Offensive" as you have claimed. Please refrain from such actions in the future - it is considered disruptive (points 4 and 5) and will certainly not help any future renaming attempts. --Illythr (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you looked it up in another book by Glantz, and have not openly lied. Comment partially withdrawn. --Illythr (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodwood

The defenders at Cagny and Emieville were largely unscathed; these sites had clear fields of fire into the path of the British advance.(Williams, p. 167)

Does Williams make clear that the men defending these two locations had recovered from the bombing and were ready and waiting by the time the British tanks got to them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cavalry

I will get back to you in a reasonable amount of time, and I apologise for the delay, but meanwhile, do we have anything on the Romanian cavalry? There's a new article that could certainly use some mention of the subject, eg [2], [3], [4]. Enjoy your vacation! - Biruitorul Talk 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold War Good Article Status

Just thought you might like to know. I hope you're having a good vacation! Hires an editor (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown?

Want to help out WP:MILHIST and gain some recognition at the same time? You only need to write a MILHIST DYK to qualify for a Triple Crown. You would also be eligible for a WikiProject Triple Crown once it is awarded to the project, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Crowning_the_project. Anyways, hope you had a nice vacation. -MBK004 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clare Stevenson

Hi mate, not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth but generally ACR requires 3 supports to pass and this one only had 2. No doubt there's scope for discretion but, for my info, was that deliberate? Maybe a 'strong support' (from Ed) counts for 2 regular supports...? Just interested...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article history anomaly

Hi again mate, just noticed an anomaly in Nguyen Van Nhung‎'s article history after I passed it as GA. The history shows it as having been promoted to A-class, however the linked review seems to have been left at no consensus, and under the MILHIST banner it's explicitly recorded as having failed ACR. As you were the coord closing the ACR, could you clarify what you believe it should be, for consistency? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Caen Map

Howdy,

If you have been able to verfiy the date on these maps:
File:Battleforcaenmap.png
File:Battleforceanmapenglish.PNG

I think you should give them a quick edit and display there source information ala:
File:Operation Brevity.svg
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to move article Russian special purpose regiments incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Russian special purpose regiments to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks a lot. I'll be joining as soon as I can. CaptainFugu (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello, Eurocopter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It moved to the Fringe Theories noticeboard [5].
I have to say that your comment on Talk:Ion Antonescu [6] "Regarding the so called Final report of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HOLOCAUST IN ROMANIA, I doubt its accuracy considering that the president of the comission was a jew (they were certainly not neutral historians)." approaches the line where critical historical review crosses into outright holocaust denialism. I have certainly not seen such statements made by people who don't turn out to be deniers or worse.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but there are a number of extremely concerned editors and administrators. That sort of opinion is, as noted here and on Talk:Ion Antonescu, a sign of a significant and troubling point of view. You really need to explain yourself here.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment on this. I find it very disturbing that an editor I previously respected, and who has risen to the extremely well-respected level of MILHIST Coordinator, should be making practically anti-Semitic and almost denialism-level comments like this. Could you explain your remarks in further detail please, Eurocopter? Skinny87 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd echo the two above me. Equating ethnicity with untrustworthiness and the like is just not cricket. Some of the views put forward are hauntingly familiar of people I am sure you don't want to parrot. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)