I've done so more work on it, which is about as far as I can go for now as coord stuff (and RL, this weeekend) is pressing. Is it ready for FAC and will it pass? That depends who reviews it. In my view, the copy still needs more work. It remains wordy in places (mostly over-explanation) and although I've fixed some of them still has slightly clunky internal repetitions ("transported by transport aircraft", overuse of "formation" for example). I'd ask EyeSerene for a second opinion if I were you :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You offered your helping taking over some GA reviews. Leves is such a candidate, the article is self-contradicting and the editor presented selected facts from sources in other articles, leading to presentations that didn't point out differing opinions. That said, I ask you to make a careful review because I don't have the time for a thorough check. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 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) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tetrach references.
I don't think it's unreasonable to conflate the references within 5 pages of each other to a single reference. Having separate entries for page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the same book doesn't help readers of wikipedia, but it does create pointless spam in the reference section. Hohum (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I'll take a look, but the article "fate per se" was not really my concern... the back story is here... such an article is well beyond start class... as at least "average" (i.e. "C"... I hope and trust you at least agreed with "that"! <g>). I was more TICKED by the template, and had hoped to stimulate proper classification and improvement efforts. So Thanks! // FrankB16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that discussion looks...complex. I'd suggest removing the article from the GA Noms, as it won't pass. It needs some good sources, no websites or documentaries, Tell you what, I have Tetrarch (tank) to get to GA and a few other articles to work on, but this has picqued my interest. Give me a week or two and I'll see if I can scrounge up some sources to get it to GA. Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not really... upshot is template wouldn't take commands I expected like others of type... class=X ought be consistent for all such, IMHO...
Heh, heh... but the GA nom has already worked... it's attracted YOUR interest. For my part, I merely made sure it had some data from the documentaries you trash ... my sole involvement, save for cosmetic stuff like title format, layout changes, etc... overall trivial things. Documentaries, are like news articles, they are better than wild ass guesses, and who is to say that their researchers are less skilled than a book writer's? Both have an editorial oversight and employer to vett the researchers work. Dissing such is kind of snobby to my way of thinking.
OTOH, fully agree with books as best source... but what then do YOU DO when two authors disagree... say one insists German's copied bazooka from Russians, and another copied from the one's captured at the Kasserine pass? in the North Africa Campaign? Not being Godlike, I can't say who is correct, whether both, or neither, and mostly, so can't anyone else! Enjoy trying though. But not as much as enjoy making sure we cover alledged factoids asserted elsewhere, including your despised documentaries... even if just in counterpoint! // FrankB16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fyi, and on Talk:Bazooka...So what do you want... If I remove the GA tagging now, there's no stimulus to have people improve it. But if you want, I'll do that if you deem it wisest. That FYI is why I don't get involved in this kind of microscopic colonoscopy on articles... then again, there's endless editing mercilessly on top of that. Getting too deep in an article leaves one liable to feelings of emotional attachement, AND I learned in my first month here, edit wars are really ugly things... and counterproductive. (I ended up mediating THAT, btw—and many others as a members advocate because of it.) Hence I fiddle in an article if and only if I can call it an improvement.
ThinkBlue's unthinking self-aggrandizement vice performing an easy fix of the minor glitches is masturbatory at best... which attitudes are far more common these days around here.
Hi! Thanks for your comments, but merging all the forts into one article is counter productive. Each fort is located in a different region, built by different rulers (British/Portuguese/native), and for different purposes. Having it merged would present us with several problems including what to do with the infoboxes. For a full listing see List of forts in Mumbai.
Well, now that brings us to the size of the article: Yes, it is on the shorter side most unfortunately. I have been researching on these forts for the last five years, keeping aside any newspaper reports on them. In addition, I visited each and every one of them armed with a camera and GPS device. Unfortunately, too little has been written on these forts in any authoritative source. Based on my understanding of forts and general interest in them, I could expand the article myself, but that would be WP:original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Given this scenario, the scope for expansion is almost nil. Your thoughts? =Nichalp«Talk»=14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I plan to GAfy all, and get the list page up to FL standards. I've paused work actually on the other articles. I have quite a number of fort pictures in my camera that need to be transferred, but mu USB is not working, and have little time to fix it. FA-class would never be possible unless I manage to get hold of a dedicated account of the history and architecture of the fort. Quite unlikely IMO. :( =Nichalp«Talk»=15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TNA
I work there, but in the IT department, so I'm not always fully in the picture with what's going on in the actual reading rooms. Still, feel free to email me, and I'll do my best to answer your queries. David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have seen my replies to the GA review for SS Czar or not, so here's a friendly notice (or reminder). I did have a couple of questions (posted there) about some items I was not clear on. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd poke my head in to clarify (per my understanding, of course): Market Garden was three separate drops over three geographically distinct areas, so it cannot be said to have been one single drop. As you pointed out on Jf692a's talk, Varsity was one single drop in one location, so it's the largest single drop in airborne warfare.
Not a problem - I just couldn't bear to see all those empty headers...
I'm impressed with the level of detail you're going into; if you can keep this up it'll definitely be FA-grade (it might even need pruning down when you've done). A cavalry regiment is a good choice for something to hack at - the scope is quite cleanly defined, at least once you've got past the knotty early period, because you don't need to worry about how to write about subunits and associated volunteers and so on, which really threw me when I tried to do one of the big infantry regiments. Is there any particular reason for choosing this one, out of interest?
Ok, obviously no need to revert if you're doing a major rewrite. I'd suggest creating a sub-page off your userpage for saving data during editing. Hohum (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books and Records
Can I suggest that you telephone the Imperial War Museum in London and make an appointment to use their library. (Use of the library is by appointment only.) You will have to tell them what you are researching. When I have used it they have sorted out books for me so that when I arrived I could start working. The library is reference only. (Incidentally, they also have a separate photographic library - again an appointment is needed.) The National Army Museum also has a library that you could use if you made an appointment.
The National Archives at Kew has stuff on the vehicles you are interested in, though not in an easily digested form, and it is scattered in all sorts of funny places in the WO files. Please be aware that by late 1941, when 8th Army troops referred to 'Light Tanks' in reports they meant M-2/M-3 Stuarts. I did some work 18 years ago and mistakenly thought that they meant Mk VI Light Tanks.
With respect of books - try Motor Books in St Martin's Lane in London, and Foyles in Charing Cross Road in London. Often you can find things by browsing the shelves.
With respect of tanks, try looking at biographies of people who served in them. Note that books such as Official Histories will contain some information of relevance to you.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 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) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about your project
Hello. I noticed your Airborne project and I was wondering if it is exclusive to Airborne operations of World War II? One of the articles I've been working on, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team is close to FA status, but it needs a little more help from some book sources on its history, but most of that would be found in Vietnam War material. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for anything I can get, but I'm afraid that info on Corregidor might throw the article off topic since the unit wasn't active at the time. If there's anything more you can add to the Vietnam section, though, it would be highly appreciated! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article M22 Locust you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:M22 Locust for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your "blessing" of the article. I may now shoot for Featured Article status. Could you recommend what I may need (if anything) to improve it for the FA review. One editor suggested adding a bit of "color" background here and there on some topics -- to keep the average reader engaged. An example could be a short blurb on the tactical role of riflemen in the Rev. War relative to that of the musketmen. I appreciate any insights/suggestions.Tfhentz (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been slowly ticking through the WWII TD units - they're a nice limited set of things to work on - and I generally try to get them about as far as they'll reasonably go in an evening. The 705th does, as you note, have the potential for a lot more, but I'm not sure how much the research would pay off - it features only incidentally in the official history, it seems. I'll try checking Eisenhower's book when I'm back at work (there's a copy in the library) and see what it has.
The problem is that it needs to refer back to a larger framework to be coherent, and our article on the Siege of Bastogne is not desperately good; it needs a good shakeup, but I'm not particularly enthralled by the idea of taking it on. It's one of those articles that's limited very much by its context, you know? Anything you feel like providing would be appreciated as always, though! Shimgray | talk | 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I appreciate the thought. Hmm, well it all comes down to personal preference when it comes to article writing, and how the primary contributor(s) wish to present the information. For a case such as Gale, I would recommend a style simular to the following section wise: Early life --> First World War --> Between the wars or Inter-bellum --> Second World War --> Later life or something to that effect. I have done something simular to this on Francis Hassett, an Australian general (although I still have further expansion pending :). Well, I hope this helps and is able to give you a ruff idea on how to present the information. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Astonia
Thanks for your edits here! A talk with the guy who rated it initially has resulted in a list-thing of all the points needed to turn it into a B-class article; you've covered all of them except the use of Le Havre as a major Allied port after the battle. I don't have any sources on the subject myself (when creating the article I was limited to "what does google say"; would you happen to? One little push and it'll be (depressingly) the best article I've been involved in. Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting the light tank to be an FA. I apologise that I did not promptly act on your request, but this is what I would have done before supporting it. Nonetheless, Sandy has judged (correctly) from the overwhelming support the article received that it should be an FA; any remaining grammar issues were likely minor. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message Roger. I've never really got involved in RFAs before other than voting, but that vote just got to me. It's a vote that is the opposite of AGF, and doubly so for a Coordinator with his record against another Coordinator. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they're both coordinators shouldn't make a difference here (the !voting is based on experience/perceptions not allegiances) though I can understand why it rankled. --ROGER DAVIEStalk16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on the copyedit; I'll post questions etc on the article talk page. Please feel free to change back anything you don't like ;) EyeSerenetalk15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm trying to do yours and Op Cobra simultaneously (since although Eurocopter is behind you in my queue, I think it's going to FAC fairly soon), so apologies if things are a bit sporadic, and don't worry if it goes a bit quiet every so often ;) EyeSerenetalk17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Actually, I think switching between the articles will give me a bit of variety, and it'll be good for me to spend time on non-admin related stuff for a while ;) EyeSerenetalk18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This year a bot will be tallying the scores for the tournament. This bot will be run by ST47 and will count edits–at 0.1 points each (major edits only, see below)–and submissions at the scores listed in the tables.
You must submit any work that you manage to promote in each period on your submissions page. Your page is located here. Rules and instructions are here for submitting.
Due to the massive influx of Huggle users, and because this is a content contest rather than an editcountitis extravaganza, minor edits will be scored at only 0.01 points. If you are a Huggle user your edits must be marked as minor or you will be disqualified. If you are unsure, check your contributions.
If you wish to drop out before the tournament begins, please do so as soon as possible, but not later than January 5.
Most importantly, good luck! Happy New Years, Garden. and ayematthew 16
Spencer has had 1 successful "In the news" nomination.
From the Judges
This years WikiCup started off great! It's only the second full week of competition, and we already have a lot of content promoted. We have some very close pools, such as Pool A and J. We also have some pools who have not been very active yet, but hopefully that will start changing in the coming weeks.
Garden and iMatthew have also opened a new pool, the "Judge's Pool" where we are competing against each other and following the same rules as all of you. This pool however, will never have any effect on the actual competition, but you can still check back often to see how we are doing compared to yourself.
That's it for this newsletter edition, everyone. Any questions or comments are always welcome on the WikiCup talk page, or our user talk pages. Until next time, Garden. and iMatthew // talk // 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list.
Current leaders
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (138)
Gary King (86)
Spencer (67)
Pool B
Sceptre (22)
Spittlespat (7)
Greatestrowerever, Malinaccier (6)
Pool C
Candlewicke (60)
Scorpion0422 (24)
Steven Walling (9)
Pool D
NapHit (27)
ThinkBlue (18)
97198 (11)
Pool E
X! (69)
Sasata (10)
LOTRrules (4)
Pool F
Bedford (29)
RyanCross (21)
the_ed17, Howard the Duck (5)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (46)
Skinny87 (16)
What!?Why?Who?, Pedro_João, Ceranthor (2)
Pool H
Juliancolton (133)
Tinucherian (41)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (144)
Theleftorium (121)
Wrestlinglover (15)
Pool J
Paxse (78)
Climie.ca (67)
Useight (46)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
Thank you for your email - I will look into modifying the copyright credits on the images you say are in the public domain but would like to inform you that we are working with the Imperial War Museum, as the new Airborne Forces Museum (of which the ParaData website is a part) is situated at Imperial War Museum Duxford. We have had several meetings with them and they are fully aware that we are using some of their images on our site and we have agreements in place.
By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "significant contributions to the areas of World War II battles/engagements and airborne warfare" and writing three Featured Articles, one A-class Article, and five Good Articles as well as being active in the GA review", I award you this Bronze Wiki. --ROGER DAVIEStalk06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something.
Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan, Gary King (191)
Spencer (127)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (112)
Sceptre (34)
Spittlespat (9)
Pool C
Candlewicke (182)
Scorpion0422 (72)
Steven Walling (16)
Pool D
97198 (79)
NapHit (29)
ThinkBlue (25)
Pool E
Sasata (91)
X! (69)
Straight Edge PXK (6)
Pool F
Bedford (55)
RyanCross (31)
the_ed17 (24)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (104)
Ceranthor (34)
Skinny87 (17)
Pool H
Juliancolton (230)
Tinucherian (64)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (319)
Theleftorium (196)
J Milburn (65)
Pool J
Climie.ca (101)
Paxse (97)
Useight (81)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Blocked him indefinitely. Just looked at some odd comments and noted that he's only got a few edits, all of them talk pages and seems to know all the policies already. Seems like a great big leg-pulling account saying Mein Kampf is a RS and comparing 1914 Serbia to the Taliban and OBL. I think you should be more cynical with some folks.... There's this guy on the VN War page who never edits and only drones on and one saying that the US didn't lose and nobody answered him luckily, except a few hard-core anti-US guys who did the opposite... No need to reply to him. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pop off to bed and work in the morning"?? How can you pop off to bed and then work when there's reviewing to be done?! ;-) Anyway, this is your buzz as requested...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not being more specific. References usually format themselves as "last name, first name (year). title. Place of publication. Publishing company, ISBN #". You've got everything except where the books were published. Cam(Chat)20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content is continuing to pile in, it's great! Nothing significant this issue, but we currently have a straw poll going on regarding the point values of featured pictures, sounds, and lists. Garden., iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (254)
Gary King (215)
Spencer (150)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (189)
Sceptre (35)
Spittlespat (10)
Pool C
Candlewicke (250)
Scorpion0422 (146)
Steven Walling (29)
Pool D
97198 (89)
ThinkBlue (37)
NapHit (31)
Pool E
Sasata (140)
X! (105)
Straight Edge PXK (9)
Pool F
Bedford (101)
the_ed17 (40)
RyanCross (32)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (107)
Ceranthor (67)
jj137 (50)
Pool H
Juliancolton (355)
Tinucherian (71)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (462)
Theleftorium (264)
J Milburn (88)
Pool J
Climie.ca (135)
Paxse (134)
Useight (116)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom Derrick GAN
Hi Skinny. I noticed you listed your name down about three days ago to review the article Tom Derrick I nominated for GA. As it hasn't been reviewed yet, I thought I would give you a friendly poke to remind you just in case it was forgotten. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been wanted to get a copy of it, but the only thing I could get off interlibrary loan was the audiocassette version (not very useful for citations, besides the fact I don't have a tape player.) I'll probably have to end up buying it anyhow, but thanks for the note. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but he's an actor. It's sort of a given, he's just more obviously self-absorbed than most :) In fact, while the original cast hated working under him (understandably) and there was an excess of Shatner moments (also understandably), Shatner's direction was in many ways better than Nimoy's in Star Trek III; unfortunately there was no money for effects, one too many plot devices thrown in, and the god-awful humor shoehorned in because the Paramount execs wanted to keep with the formula STIV set. I have to wonder how much better it might have been if it had not been the film after Star Trek IV... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're still going strong. Couple of things though; please note that you must make it known you are in the WikiCup when nominating FAs, FLs, FPos, FPs, and FSs. This is to lower the possibility of bias. We're also changing the way you get to the next round. Now, the top two from each round get through, along with ten wildcards. This means that even if you're not in the top two you can still get into Round 2, so even if you're in the group of death you can still go through. Hopefully this will be fairer for all. We've also unfortunately had our first withdrawal - Truco has left the Cup. Best wishes for him in the future. Garden., iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (452)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (233)
La Pianista (61)
Pool C
Candlewicke (400)
Scorpion0422 (249)
Pool D
97198 (148)
NapHit (63)
Pool E
Sasata (233)
X! (210)
Pool F
Bedford (202)
the_ed17 (148)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (142)
Ceranthor (134)
Pool H
Juliancolton (491)
Tinucherian (95)
Pool I
Durova (887)
Theleftorium (458)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (671)
Paxse (291)
Wildcards
Useight (250)
J Milburn (181)
Spencer (177)
Climie.ca (169)
Rambo's Revenge (100)
Tinucherian (95)
WereSpielChequers (77)
Wrestlinglover (67)
Rlevse (65)
10. ThinkBlue (57)
10. Skinny87 (57)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:39, 8 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) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really much to say this week, everyone is still doing well. There was a discussion on shortening the length of round one, but the idea is dead in the water. Thanks for contributing! GARDEN, iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (673)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (308)
La Pianista (62)
Pool C
Scorpion0422 (483)
Candlewicke (451)
Pool D
97198 (210)
NapHit (97)
Pool E
Sasata (262)
X! (210)
Pool F
Bedford (275)
the_ed17 (161)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (144)
Ceranthor (136)
Pool H
Juliancolton (559)
Tinucherian (100)
Pool I
Durova (1135)
Theleftorium (656)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (777)
Paxse (371)
Wildcards
Useight (325)
Spencer (215)
Climie.ca (203)
J Milburn (202)
Rambo's Revenge (110)
Rlevse (93)
WereSpielChequers (82)
Dendodge (74)
ThinkBlue (72)
Wrestlinglover (72)
All scores are accurate as of 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Guys! Well it's Thehelpfulone's first time properly looking at the scores as he made this newsletter and he's impressed on how much work you have all done. It's a shame to say that RyanCross has withdrawn from the Cup. We have almost hit 200 DYKs, not far off from 100 GA's and Durova has passed the 1000 point mark on points, with 1347 points so congratulations to her! GARDEN, iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (792)
Catalan (254)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (419)
La Pianista (66)
Pool C
Scorpion0422 (530)
Candlewicke (502)
Pool D
97198 (240)
ThinkBlue (141)
Pool E
Sasata (412)
X! (211)
Pool F
Bedford (284)
the_ed17 (169)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (157)
Ceranthor (137)
Pool H
Juliancolton (582)
Tinucherian (110)
Pool I
Durova (1347)
Theleftorium (840)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (779)
Matthewedwards (503)
Wildcards
Useight (396)
Bedford (284)
Catalan (254)
97198 (240)
Spencer (238)
Climie.ca (234)
J Milburn (216)
X! (211)
the_ed17 (169)
Sunderland06 (157)
All scores are accurate as of 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Operation Varsity was a joint American–British airborne operation that took place in March 1945, towards the end of World War II. It was planned to aid the British 21st Army Group in securing a foothold across the River Rhine in western Germany by landing two airborne divisions on the eastern bank of the Rhine near the towns of Hamminkeln and Wesel. The operation took place on the morning of 24 March 1945 as a part of Operation Plunder, the overall effort by 21st Army Group under Field MarshalBernard Montgomery to cross the river and from there enter Northern Germany. The operation involved two airborne divisions from US XVIII Airborne Corps: the British 6th Airborne Division and the US 17th Airborne Division. The operation called for the two airborne divisions to be dropped by parachute and glider behind German lines near Wesel, with their primary objective to be the capture of key territory and to generally disrupt German defenses to aid the advance of Allied ground forces.(more….)
for jumping in on my talk page. I'm not sure why it's being argued that a non-notable band deserves a redirect that should point to a well known subject, but hey. Also, congrats on getting Varsity on the main page next month! Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M113
I think that the M113 Gavin should be included. It is well supported in Google, as you say. Someone keeps reverting me and sending me notes that I am "breaking ze rules". :) Wallie (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I have tried to discuss things, it never goes the way I want it to. In this case, I think someone doesn't like Jim Gavin. I hate this sort of politics. Wallie (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not right. I am not "picking fights". If I add something, and it is reverted, I would suggest the other party is picking the fight. There are too many destroyers on Wikipedia and not enough creators, to my mind. It is very easy to revert stuff, and probably makes the person doing feel good, as they are keeping Wikipedia "free of vandals". However, they are also killing off creativity. I will continue to fight these b*s. Wallie (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the Churchill article, I am wasting my time totally. The Churchill article is highly biased and will remain so. The English will always lionize Churchill, whereas people like me see some failings. Any criticism of Churchill no matter how well sourced is immediately reverted. Wallie (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Freshman
Hey, in regard to the book you need for Operation Freshman, I have access to several major libraries and I'd be happy to get it out myself and look up anything you need for the article if you'll just give me the title and publication info. You can just drop a note on my talk page or back on the assessment page. Cool3 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to turn up one book on the subject, Operation Freshman, by Richard Wiggan. There seems to be one other good book on the subject: Operation freshman : the hunt for Hitler's heavy water, by Jostein Berglyd, but I'm unable to get my hands on a copy. Your user page says you're at the University of Warwick, though, and according to WorldCat, the Warwickshire County library is one of the few libraries in the world to have a copy, so you might want to stop by there and pick it up if you can. Cool3 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinder book? Do you mean the Wiggan book? Sorry if I mistakenly referred to it as the Kinder book somewhere. It's in the bibliography now. Oh, were you referring to the published: Kimber? Cool3 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One encouraging aspect of the preparations was that reports from the Norwegian agents were promising. One agent reported: 'OK. Eureka tested. Three feet of snow only. Landing place close to road possible. Landing ground, five kilometres from dam, cannot be seen by Germans. No telephone at any farm in the area. Nice flat ground approximately seven hundred yards. No trees or stones" (Wiggan 50) Cool3 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good article does not mean perfect. You can always revert my edits, but think twice: I did not delete references, only redundancy where several sequential phrases were referenced the same. In these cases, a single reference at the end of the sequence or the paragraph is enough and much less tiresome for the reader.
We have 31 days left, just one month left in the first round. The first two months have already produced spectacular results, and we're hoping to see a great race to the end of the round. Get those nominations in for them to count for this round, but remember that any nominations that are not promoted before the end of this round, will still count for round two if you make it. We unfortunately had another contestant, What!?Why?Who?, withdraw this week and we wish them the best.
We saw some big jumps in content upgrades this week! We saw 33 new good articles, 3 new featured articles and lists, 8 featured pictures, 5 featured sounds, and 24 did you know items. (Also note, there are 111 good articles and 222 did you know items as of this newsletter). Keep it up during the final push to round two. GARDEN, iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (1012)
Spencer (292)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (566)
La Pianista (68)
Pool C
Scorpion0422 (580)
Candlewicke (580)
Pool D
97198 (313)
ThinkBlue (248)
Pool E
Sasata (480)
X! (211)
Pool F
the_ed17 (299)
Bedford (290)
Pool G
Ceranthor (177)
Sunderland06 (159)
Pool H
Juliancolton (604)
Tinucherian (112)
Pool I
Durova (1528)
Theleftorium (913)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (816)
Matthewedwards (625)
Wildcards
Useight (549)
Paxse (454)
Climie.ca (259}
Catalan (254)
J Milburn (232)
Rambo's Revenge (201)
Rlevse (129)
NapHit (99)
WereSpielChequers (92)
Howard the Duck (82)
Wrestlinglover (82)
Dendodge (78)
Steven Walling (69)
All scores are accurate as of 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Contestants in italics are those crawling up behind the wildcards.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rubbish. A person's allegiance is to their country, unless they are a traitor. This English bias you are all trying to push is just too much. For example, Bernard Montgomery is shown as having allegiance to the United Kingdom. This is true. I find it also disgusting, as he had South African soldiers in his command and had no allegiance whatsoever to them. It confirms everything I have always believed about the English. Wallie (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87. It appears you don't like me. I can accept that. You are not objective, and are biased towards the English. Wallie (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny. It is not just you. There are a lot of people here who won't accept any criticism of England or the English. I try to be NPOV. It is an annoyance with Wikipedia. Of you get on to the Polish language page, everything is slanted towards Poland. Doesn't anyone have an objective view? Wallie (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny. You say you want to work cooperatively with me, and start of by agreeing with EyeSerene's view of me, and his threats. I have always been reasonable. It seems that you seem to want to buy into the personal attacks of EyeSerene on me. Wallie (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note. Yes, we need to get this sorted out. By the way, I did read my remarks. I am sorry to you personally. However, other people were diliberately trying to get me annoyed. I think we have to get this defined, as you said. I think allegiance means who you are fighting for in the military sense. In the case of Commonwealh pilots, they were fighting for their own country, not the United Kingdom. They othen joined the RAF, as their own country wanted to avoid red tape and get them helping out quickly. That is the fact of the situation. If you are from another country, and the United Kingdom gets credited with your efforts, that is unfair and also not correct. Wallie (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really does have to be sorted out. I feel that it is a plain political argument. Pilots from other nations joined the RAF too, but retained their original nationality in allegiance. The Polish pilots mostly have an allegiance of Poland. Many just have the picture and no info box. There needs to be consistency in Wikipedia. I am naturally afraid that if I debate this point too much, I will be banned. However, I don't think it is right. Wallie (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "allegiance" is the crux of the argument, wherein its specific context in the infobox is to the military service, not the country of birth or the nationality of the individual. Other than rewriting the section in the template, there is already an established definition of terminology that users can refer to as they are adding information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't agree. I think it depends on what country you are from. Allegiance is stronger than nationality. It is like re-writing history. For example, Cobber Kain is now being treated as British rather than New Zealand. This logic does not apply to more important pilots such as Billy Fiske, who has an allegiance of the United States, even though he too was in the RAF and no other service. Wallie (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! I was thinking earlier I should find a nice short biography to write, get back in practice... the suggestion came at just the right time! Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Hey,
You participated in the peer-review for Operation Deny Flight a while back, and the article's now going through FAC. I was just wondering if you might interested in participating in that, either to support or leave any additional comments/issues with the article. Thanks! Also, good job getting Operation Freshman through the A-class review, planning to take it all the way to FA? Cool3 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crete and Phyrric Victory
Churchill called it a Phyrric Victory, and a lot of references have copied this idea. I had a lot of relatives in this battle - my father and uncles. It was a bit like Saving Private Ryan, as they were all there. It was a horrible defeat, and my father never got over the shame of it. You have to understand this. I am being honest here. British people are lucky. You have never experienced defeat, and so could never understand it. Also, to call it Phyrric means the Germans lost nearly everything and gained a hollow victory. This is not true. Wallie (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I am even entitled to vote, so perhaps I'm not the right person to spend time convincing. But, re the C-class thing which I don't think it proper to continue on the election page, My position is that having a C grade based on geting several of the B-grade marks may be better than nothing, but I am not happy with it. In particular I think the last three criteria by themselves (as used on some projects) guarantee very little except a set of properly spelled headings, an infobox and a picture. The one which matters for me is some degree of informative content. The rest are window dressing. Logically, I would give a C on decent content and none of the others. To me, this would give a purpose to the grade usefull to readers as well as editors. An informative but scrappy article. I am afraid I have always found the FA A GA B grades as absurdly overlapping and in need of culling to create a meaningful scale. Probably GA should be scrapped. What does it mean? If you are concerned with saving wasted effort, then perhaps sorting out this confusion of higher assessment schemes would be good? Sandpiper (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start makes up around 50% of history articles, and stub 45%. B 4% and the higher grades 1%. The system is terrible at the bottom end in distinguishing articles, which I am certain make up the vast majority of reader hits on history articles. As i said before, what exactly are the features distinguishing a GA from an A or B? Sandpiper (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I asked the question was not so much to find out from you but to find if you knew, since you were professing an opinion that GA was useful. If you yourself don't know the exact meaning, how can you claim it is doing something useful? Before asking I checked the official definitions and frankly came away none the wiser as to exactly how GA helps us distinguish articles. So I don't know either. GA and FA were both separate assessment scales different from the ABstart scale originally, and remain so. The system is a mess of overlapping redundant effort. I came at this originally from the point of view that wiki readers need an assessment scale to tell them if an article is any good. The problem is, that any scale lumping 95% of all articles into the same two categories just isn't telling them much. I don't advocate creating lots of categories without some sensible grading distinction between them. However, the effect of policies such as that of the history project to insist upon ever stricter criteria has pushed down perfectly serviceable articles into the 'start' category. This was not the intention of the scale designers, and is still not their intention. C has been introduced to restore the balance somewhat. Having created the problem, history is resisting the solution. Sandpiper (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, perhaps enough of this, but this is an election for new coordinators who will be making policy. always best to find out before electing someone rather than after what they think. Sandpiper (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Operation Varsity - quite thorough, and utilizing a large amount of source material. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skinny, sorry about the long response time, but I have guests that I need to entertain. I have only about two references for Operation Cockade, but they each have about 30 refs total. Any questions, please respond here, or my talk page. TARTARUStalk15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that this week is probably your last chance to nominate anything for promotion to count in this round, so start planning that all-important final push. Bear in mind that anything not promoted this month will still count in the next round if you go through. It's looking very close in the Wildcards section, so if you don't see yourself there, don't panic—you may not be too far off the pace! GARDEN, iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Gary King (1087)
Spencer (353)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (873)
Spittlespat (77)
Pool C
Scorpion0422 (788)
Candlewicke (658)
Pool D
ThinkBlue (386)
97198 (360)
Pool E
Sasata (581)
X! (215)
Pool F
Bedford (331)
the_ed17 (313)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (228)
Ceranthor (183)
Pool H
Juliancolton (632)
Dendodge (219)
Pool I
Durova (1932)
Theleftorium (1060)
Pool J
Mitchazenia (1167)
Matthewedwards (695)
Wildcards
Useight (648)
Paxse (468)
Rlevse (290)
J Milburn (288)
Climie.ca (262)
Catalan (255)
Rambo's Revenge (241)
Tinucherian (159)
Ottava Rima (159)
PeterSymonds (127)
Neurolysis (108)
WereSpielChequers (107)
NapHit (100)
All scores are accurate as of 12:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
Contestants in italics are just behind the wildcards.
I noticed that in your election comments you said that you would not oppose C-class if others felt it was desireable, and that you would not oppose it at all if it was done as an automatic process. Yet you have lodged a vote against its adoption. Does this not contradict your stated intention of going along with the view of others, or indeed not opposing it at all if automatic? Sandpiper (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said that is having your cake and eating it. Making an election statement not to oppose something, and then opposing it. Most politicians wait until after elections before reneging on their election pledges! Sandpiper (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending [[Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism
I did not write anything that was not the truth. I was there in that unit and saw with my own eyes and talked with about 400 others that were there also. Brian J. Menes and Mervyn Jobe are infact two of the WORST leaders in the U.S. Army. Unless you were there who are you to question that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.249.209 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MBisanz would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact MBisanz to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skinny87 . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
