Wikipedia

User:Carl Logan/Archive1

< User:Carl Logan


2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment

Hi, I've redirected 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment back to French Foreign Legion for now. Feel free to reverse me if you later wish to add some substance to the article. Cheers, Melchoir 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

 

Hi, 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:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 14:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Importance scale

The importance scale used by WP:MILHIST attempts to estimate how "well-known" something is, not its "true" importance. You might want to keep this criterion in mind when assessing articles. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi! It's great that you're doing so much work on improving articles, but especially when you delete quite a bit from an article, please leave an edit summary (even if it's just 'cleanup'). This makes it so much easier for recent change patrollers to see that your edits aren't vandalism! Kind regards, --JoanneB 11:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim edits

Carl:

  • Your right about the spelling of Strasbourg, I didn’t realise you had changed it – Anyway, well spotted.
  • can I change it to "led the remains of the Franco-Bavarian army back"

The ‘problem’ I had with your edit was that it suggested the remainder of the WHOLE Franco-Bavarian army - which you also implied was ‘led by the Elector and Marsin’ - headed for Strasbourg. I think the confusion lay in the fact that the Elector and Marsin controlled only the left wing – Tallard was in overall command and directly controlled thr right wing. Therefore when I said “The remnants of the Elector of Bavaria and Ferdinand de Marsin's forces limped back to Strasburg” I was not talkng about the whole army, just the men under their command on the left. Slightly earlier in the battle, many of Tallard’s army on the right tried to flee across the Danube and were drowned, many others were scattered elsewhere; this was described in the section called 'Breakthrough'. I think it's accurate as it is.

  • Edward Shepard Creasey seams to divide some of us. The quote was added by another contributor after I wrote the main article. However, because the quote is clearly attributed and sourced, I personally have no problem with it in the article. Creasey’s most famous work “Fifteen decisive battles of the World”, is credible, albeit somewhat Anglo-centric. Creasey’s work is often used by modern historians including David Chandler (one of the world’s leading experts on the period), and many others. I personally think the quote is valid.
  • “I also wish to add that the military occuption of Bavaria was vital to the Austrian war economy.”

Please do.

Cheers. :) Raymond Palmer 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Juin's goumiers war crimes

Probably you have missed the main article about the war crimes in Ciociaria: marocchinate. It's still a stub, but I've inserted 12 references. The most are of good level. The problem is they are mainly in Italian and not in English. This is not surprising, quoting from [1]: As the the Belgium scholare Pierre Moreau asserts: "Those tragic events were never reminded in the historic literature of Second World War, in the Freanch, as well in the Dutch and English one. It was not only the people of the "Aurunci", to stand violence during the famous reward of the "fifty hours", promised by Juin to the troops, if they had broke trough Cassino line. It is proved, instead, that phenomon started in Sicily, in July 1943; it crossed Latium and Tuscany, and it ended only after tranferring of the CEF to Provence, in October 1944. If it is not remebered abroad, the goumiers' behaviour are deep in the memory of the vicitms. When I was in Cassino four years ago, the people was still horrorified tellin me about the "terrible behaviuor" of some "French troops". On the other side they had a good memory of the Germans..... The war crimes in Ciociaria are real: there is no discussion. If you have problems with the Italian site, let me know. We could try to search again for some good references in English, but I'm afraid it will be hard.--Giovanni Giove 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon

I see you are quite an insulting little chap. First of all accusing me of "blogging" and going on about POV. Do you really think that you can simply revert everything you don't like? Ever compromised in you life? Doubt it. Wallie 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you about the Napoleon pic. I've removed it and repositioned the other appropriate pic at the upper left.UberCryxic 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Legion uniforms

Yes perhaps I was piling on the detail too much. Will stop, at least until the article has grown around the uniform section. Thanks for creating this as a separate item.

Re a separate sub section for the kepi blanc. The difficulty here is that this particular icon of the Legion has been around since at least the Mexican Intervention. A subsection devoted to it would need to repeat developments appearing in the main section. Will give this a bit more thought. Regards. Buistr 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking of creating another sub-article like French Foreign Legion in popular culture about the culture of the legion, copying much from the site on the French Wikipedia. Maybe we can incorporate the importance of the kepi blanc there.

A culture of the Foreign Legion sub-article sounds like a good idea. There was clearly something that elevated the Legion above what a pre-1914 observer unkindly described as "a second rate regiment of German infantry transplanted to Africa". Douglas Porch devotes a good deal of his book "The French Foreign Legion - A Complete History" to analysing what made the Legion different.

Re regimental differences within the Legion: there were suprisingly few of these at least as far as regulation wear and insignia went. The French Army has, at least since 1870, opted for standardisation within branches. Thus (for example) one cuirassier regiment in 1900 would appear like every other one except for the numbers on the collar patches. There was little of the British emphasis on regimental identity through varied facings and elaborate official badges. The Legion was the same - until 1914 the only distinction between the 1sr REI and the 2nd REI was the number 1 or 2 on the collars of tunics, vestes and greatcoats. Between the wars the newly raised 1st REC wore silver buttons and insignia (following French cavalry custom), instead of the bronze of the infanty units. The main regimental distinctions from 1916 to the present day are probably (i) the elaborate forragere lanyards worn in the colours of particular medals when a regiment as a whole has won a number of citations (for example green and red for the Croix de Guerre); and (ii) the originally unofficial regimental, battalion and company badges adopted from the 1930s on at the initiative and expense of the individual unit. In the Legion these badges share as common elements the traditional red and green colours and the grenade. Otherwise they differ greatly in design but usually have some stylised symbol of the unit's past e.g. a dragon for service in Indo-China or a horse-shoe for service as a mounted company in the Sahara. Buistr 08:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man, what's up? I share your view that Wallie is heavily biased and is using the article (and its talk page) for things that he should not be doing. I'll try to monitor it more closely.UberCryxic 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love it if you could do a major rewrite. That article needs it. Regardless of what I said above, I think Wallie will be a reasonable editor throughout this process. We have to assume good faith at every point.UberCryxic 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking out your contributions and it's awesome to have another person here so interested in French military history. I think in the future it would be better if we worked together. So far we haven't really kept in touch, for one reason or another. But I just thought it might be better if we coordinated our efforts when disputes like in the Napoleon article arise. Anyway, hope to keep in contact more often now!UberCryxic 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I especially like all the regimental articles you've created. This has been one of my complaints about Wikipedia's coverage of French military history; when you look at the British and the Americans, they have articles on all the freaking regiments and divisions imaginable. Hopefully we'll get there with the French too.UberCryxic 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to click the edit tab right above the section that you want to work on. For example, in the 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment article, if you click the edit tab right above the History section and then save the changes you make, it's going to show an arrow pointing to History in the history of the article.UberCryxic 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

About the battles: I'm sure in the future I'm going to expand some of them, though I don't know how extensive I can or will make them. We'll see.UberCryxic 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes email might work best sometimes. Whenever you need help or something, just email me at the address given on my userpage.UberCryxic 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Column

Yes I've reverted him. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about with that. It's one of the greatest misconceptions about the French tactical system from 1792 to 1815 (in fact, the greatest). I'll say something on his talkpage.UberCryxic 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Musketeers

I have created a new page for the Musketeers of the Guard of the Maison du Roi, instead of having them at musketeer article which should mainly deal with soldiers armed with a musket. If you give the ok we can remove the information from the musketeer section and make redirects. Carl Logan 10:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am torn about this. I imagine (perhaps falsely?) that the majority of wiki links to Musketeer have to do with the French institution or with The Three Musketeers, which would lead me to want to keep it as a subheading on the Musketeer page. This would also be in keeping with the German wiki page (which also has a short section on musketeers in Japan). What is more, the Musketeer article is – right now – tiny (most of the information on the use of muskets is found at Musket), so there is no size issue calling for a subpage. Finally, I am not sure Musketeers of the Guard is well enough known as a title; if a subpage is required, maybe Musketeer (France) might be better? Anyway, that's my two cents. -- NYArtsnWords 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Hey Carl, I've taken the War of the Fifth Coalition article to FAC. Your comments there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!UberCryxic 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah my mistake on the battalions and companies. I think the sentence should stay because those changes were an important part of the Austrian reforms, which in turn were critical in determining Austrian performance during the war.UberCryxic 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We had a problem about the decision to include the British. We agreed in the FAC review that since the war did not officially end until October 14, then the British expedition to Walcheren should be included.UberCryxic 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: La Legion

Wow. Definitely does not belong in the article.UberCryxic 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there are way too many external links in that article. A good majority of them have to go since we're running the risk of overlinking.UberCryxic 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I took that particular link out. I'll defer to you for what others should go or stay. Is there some person that's pushing for that link to be in there?UberCryxic 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Verdun

Hey, yeah I'll gladly upload them and we can use them with fair use rationale. But I still have to ask exactly which picture you want. Is it the aerial shot of Douamont or one of the soldier photos?UberCryxic 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've uploaded the picture under fair use rationale. If you know the photographer let me know so I can add him or her in. Also I'm not sure about the copyright status. This might get deleted after a few weeks, but we'll see. About the names....some people long ago probably reached a consensus that the names should be like that. I've noticed the same thing for a lot of other articles in Wikipedia. They probably should not be changed.UberCryxic 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey man, I just got a warning about a copyvio in my talk page. Unless you specify this picture's copyright status, they're prolly going to delete it in the next few days.UberCryxic 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm checking the tags now, and the best we can do for a general public domain image is if the author died at least 70 years ago. Is that the case here?UberCryxic 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yikes that Lauffeld thing is a big problem. The most common English name I've read for the battle is "Lauffeld," so the "Lawfeld" needs to be deleted.UberCryxic 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New portal

Hey, I've just created the Military history of France portal! Hopefully with time it will become the centerpiece for Wikipedia's coverage of French military history. Right now everything's messy cuz I just got started, but see if you can fill out some of those redlinks that don't have any material now. I'm working around here and there.UberCryxic 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I got rid of the redlinks by eliminating some unnecessary sections. Now we need to decide on qualitative issues...what colors do we want the banners to be, how much info we should put in certain sections (like Did you know), and so on...let me know if you have any suggestions.UberCryxic 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ooo and you know what else? We definitely need a timeline for French military history. Something starting from the Treaty of Verdun in 843. This can go in the Portal too. Would you mind starting an article on this? I'll help you eventually but right now I'm busy with this.UberCryxic 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
All-right the portal is mostly done and operational now. Let's hope this works out well.UberCryxic 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd have no problem with including that unit as long as you shape up the article in time for next week. The upcoming Napoleon article sounds good.UberCryxic 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Marshal of France

Yeah I'd be glad to give it a copyedit, but right now there is actually very little prose. Are you planning to expand it in that sense? Or do you just want me to look at the paragraphs that currently have prose?UberCryxic 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I gave it a minor copyedit. Yeah I guess the structure is fine. Something you might want to think about is creating a new list: List of Marshals of France. Put all that massive list in there. Then Marshal of France can just be written in summary style without recourse to listing.UberCryxic 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, I have updated the French military history portal and decided to leave Garde Du Corps for next week because I felt it was not ready yet. I can see you've done a lot of work with it today, which is great. I chose the Imperial Guard for this week's unit.UberCryxic 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey do you think you can add some more information to the Garde du Corps article before it becomes Unit of the week next week? Just beef up the lead and the other sections a little.UberCryxic 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know man. I think you need a source that says that before you can say it. It is a hell of a claim after all.UberCryxic 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Garde du Corps is Unit of the week!UberCryxic 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I guess if that's what they claim and this unit was founded before, then it's fine. But I would still encourage you to look for a source.UberCryxic 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey what's your email? Mine is resenbrink78@yahoo.com. Write something to that address so I know what your email is.UberCryxic 03:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you getting my emails by any chance?UberCryxic 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes Carl Logan 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Crimean War

Carl:

Yes, I like your idea about moving the Malakhov engagement to the end of the battle list on the Crimean War. It makes sense chronologically.

Kenmore 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

War of the Grand Alliance

Carl, I've responded on my talk page Raymond Palmer 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please support complement EU !!!

Hi,as a EU supporter maybe you´d like to support this: I´m trying to implement the 'EU' in the city-templates of European city articles. The EU should be mentioned next to the country; like country : Spain / EU Please support the enhancement in these templates and argue for the innovation if you want to. Would be great.

all the best Lear 21 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Request

Hey, I've been having some disputes with another user at the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier article. Can you please review some of the sources at the end of the talk page and give us your opinion on what we should do about this? Thanks!UberCryxic 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We are also in a Straw poll stage right now.UberCryxic 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peninsular War References

That's perfect, thanks. If you spot anything funny in what I've written, let me know—my additions aren't sacrosant; I'm just trying to get the article going somewhere, having seen it linger so long in a deplorable condition. Albrecht 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Susan Travers and Amikalavi (sp)

In Tomorrow to be brave Travers admits, indeed boasts of her affair with Dmitri Ami. , before her affair with Koening. Any opinion on if I should add that to her article. Also, I believe her father was a British Brigadier General (Army) not a Royal Navy Admiral. Cheers V. Joe 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about either Susan Travers or Dmitri, I only corrected the link to the 13th Foreign Legion Demi-Brigade. Carl Logan 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BFST

The image is in the article now, and yes I will make that article unit of the week. Thanks for the suggestion.UberCryxic 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RC Patrol

Hey bro,

I'd just like to point out really quickly that when you reverted this vandalism, the contributor that you reverted had made multiple edits. It's always good to check for that. Hope this advice helps you in the future. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 12:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agn-Dalian

Yeah it's obvious bullshit. Nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD.UberCryxic 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

re: charles piroth

done SGGH 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Command Structure

I suggest you look at regimental pages of other armies - infantry and armour regiments are listed as being "part of" whatever their administrative branch is (for example, the Royal Australian Regiment is part of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, while the Royal Canadian Dragoons is part of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps). By this rationale, the Foreign Legion regiments are part of the Légion étrangère, while armoured regiments are part of the Arme blindée cavalerie, infantry regiments are part of the Infanterie etc. Hammersfan 28/02/07, 19.20 GMT

Then you had best change every other entry Hammersfan 28/02/07, 20.10 GMT
"the larger unit(s) of which the unit is a part" - don't see anything about operational unit...Hammersfan 28/02/07, 20.45 GMT

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did u restore Denain?

The last great battle took place in Barcelona. Barcelona was the closing of the war and the fall of Barcelona represented the fall of the last Austriacist bastion. I think it's more representative than the battle of Denain. In addition it was fought in Spain, and it was the war of the Spanish Succession. It wasn't only an international conflict of interests, but a Spanish civil war. The fall of Barcelona represented the victory of one Spain on the other Spain. While the Battle of Denain was just a battle among many others, the last battle of the Siege of Barcelona was a trascendental event in the History of Spain. So all in all I think it's more appropiate to put the siege of Barcelona in the portrait. So why shouldn't it be changed? Onofre Bouvila 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re : French units

I will move the 1er Régiment Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine back to its english name because this happens to be the english wikipedia. See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history guidlines: Naming conventions: Military units and formations. Carl Logan 17:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that guideline. I had noticed that some units had their names in French and other in English. Do you think I should re-name French units articles whose titles are in French ? (such as ECTLO). I wonder if it is relevant to re-name GIGN, EPIGN, GSPR and RAID ? Rob1bureau 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pre-1870 French Corps

That seems like a good idea. I'd also suggest considering placing the more modern one at III Corps (French Army) and turning III Corps (France) into a disambiguation page, as there may be some unnecessary confusion otherwise (Napoleonic France still being "France"). Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd Ypres

Hi Carl Logan. I just posted a bit about your recent change to the article on the Second Battle of Ypres on the talk page there. You might want to respond. All the best. Esseh 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Landwehr at Leipzig, Dresden, Waterloo

I am looking for information, or resources for information related to Landwehrs in the Napoleonic era. Specifically, I have information on a Prussian man from Weidenbach, (Eifel region west of Koblenz), who is said to have been a lieutenant of the Landwehrs, (commisioned 8 April 1814), having fought for Napoleon at the battles of Dresden, Leipzig and Waterloo. However, references I have seen to Landwehr are for Prussian and sometimes Austrian militias fighting for the Allies against Napoleon. I would like to understand if there were Landwehr under the command of Napoleon, if so, what units were engaged at these three battles, and what agency might currently maintain records for those units.

Thank you.

--Tim Hansgen 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carl_Logan/Archive1&oldid=127754975"