User talk:Woody/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OzVC2

FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"We all seemed to be of the same mind in this discussion." - I can't recall ever seeing that happen before! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Woody.

Are there any questions I can answer to persuade you to change to a support vote for my Steward candidacy? My cross-wiki experience does not always appear in MediaWiki logs; however my experience on staff at WMF involved a lot of cross-wiki monitoring, even if that monitoring did not necessarily require editing. Furthermore, I worked with translations on CentralNotice in meta, which does not log publicly to contributions. In these, and other ways, I've developed a sufficient amount of experience in cross-wiki activities that I will be comfortable as a Steward. With regards to monolingualism, the other chief opposition reason, some opposes have reconsidered and switched to yes after seeing that I am capable of understanding Romance languages and with the assistance of machine translation, I am able to effectively communicate in them as well. If there is anything else I can do that would help convince you to support, please let me know. Regards, ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Association football

Thanks for your efforts on this. Apologies for my lack of activity. I was in the middle of moving house, and didn't have any net access until today. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not essential, but potentially useful. At ~10,000 views a day there must be a few who go click on the cited ref to find out more, who might as well get the up to date version. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bravo November

The article Bravo November 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 seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bravo November for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will look into those details in the next few days. Woody (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, with regards to the GAN of Bravo November, what specificaly do you think is lacking from the article. I'll be honest and say that I can't seem to find anything to add to the construction section than what is already there. Was there something specific? Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It seemed a bit short considering the history of the aircraft. However, if there really isn't any other information than what you've found, I'll tick that section off. Harrison49 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I understand that. How does it look now? I've added what I can find. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's much better. Once the lead section is expanded the article can be passed. Harrison49 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanded the lead thanks. Woody (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend a copyedit before the article is passed, just to have something else take a look at the writing. I've had these completed for two articles currently nominated for GA and I know the Guild of Copy Editors do a great job. I've added the link on the review page. Sorry, I know I said I'd pass it once the lead was expanded, but I think a copyedit is always beneficial. Harrison49 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested it because I've seen the improvements it can make. It isn't because of any faults in the article. Harrison49 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bravo November

The article Bravo November you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bravo November for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

		The Main Page Barnstar
		Awarded to Woody for becoming only the second editor to make 1,000 edits to WP:ERRORS. With many thanks for all the hard work you do in trying to keep the main page error-free. BencherliteTalk 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, didn't realise it was quite that high! Woody (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the second-highest, but you've got a way to go to catch Art LaPella (talk · contribs) with 2000 edits! Bencherlite^Talk 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Impressive, seems I must do better! ;) Woody (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Could you please protect my user page for me. Not to be picky but could you please do it like this: edit=autoconfirmed move=sysop. Thanks. Jessy ^(SCG01) 21:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

today's FA

thanks Tom B (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Friendly advice

Please note that edits such as this are cutting it close to the wire in terms of personal attacks on other editors. It might be beneficial to redact or withdraw comments that would be seen as derogatory. Please comment on content not contributors. You won't advance your cause by slagging off and antagonising other editors. If a discussion, or action of another editor, angers you, then take a break. Don't let it get the better of you. Relax and then put forward your case in a reasoned manner. I find that people are a lot more perceptive to your arguments if the discussion is civil. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read or TLDR. Your last reply was almost 10,000 bytes in length. Most editors will simply not read something that long. You will find editors more receptive if discussions are a bit more concise. Woody (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the context of that quote though, it ends discussions when it is used in discussions. I left it on your talkpage as something to think about. What you do with that advice is your prerogative. Woody (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing the context; I'm fully aware how that quote is used. I just wasn't sure if you were using in that context on my Talk Page rather than, how do I say this, having the 'chutzpah' to use it back on the Talk page where the discussion is. So let me ask you this, where in the Aston Villa article does it discuss the club logo? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C.#Colours and crest. Woody (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops. Trying to do too many things at once here. I didn't have time to read the article so I just did a quick search on the word "logo" ... I should also have searched on "crest" too. So, just for the sake of argument, if that section wasn't in the aeticle would, in your opinion, you still be able to include the crest in the Infobox? IOW, is that section inclusion the sole justification for the Villa article, or do you feel you have claims to the branding criterion too?
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ozone in the news

Thanks for picking up the rather misleading wording of the main page news item about ozone depletion due to lower temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere, well caught. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Villa Park

Will do my best. It's my birthday weekend so I'm hoping to be distracted by many things other than Wikipedia, but I'll put you top of my list for tomorrow afternoon... You're worried about being an AVFC fan? I suppose Benitez is like a benign, slow and shuffling version of Roy Keane then...?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What was I thinking? One waiter is much like another, only one being Spanish, the other French...! That's the problem when you focus your efforts on the "second tier of English football". I'm still (after, what, ten years?) getting used to playing teams like Scunthorpe. I watch MOTD with mouth open, eyes agog thinking "who does Torres play for today?"... Supporting ITFC makes following Bolton look glamorous... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good results this weekend for us both! I've replied to your query about the Villa Park attendances graph on my talk page. Thought I'd let you know because I took my sweet-ass time getting round to it, and you might have forgotten you asked me! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

First drilled commercial well

Thank you for the quick front page update. However, you might want to keep my comment on the talk page for today, just in case anyone from Lambton County in Southwestern Ontario drops by and wonders about "first". They are rather proud of their oil history. (I don't know -- is it standard policy to delete comments after action is taken?) - Tenebris 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.195 (talk)

No problems, yes it is indeed standard operating procedure for that page to remove them as they are completed. From the introduction to the page: "Done?: Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made." If someone pops by commenting on this then I will reinstate your note or link to it. Thanks again for the comment. Woody (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Live and learn. Thanks again. - Tenebris 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.195 (talk)

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello Woody: I just discovered you refused one of the two edit requests by Pedrosal. Could you please also refuse the second one, as the text in question is even more sourced (via the relevant references in the article Isabel dos Santos: I added several more today. Aflis (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Geological range template

Woody, don't be too alarmed that I rolled back your edits to the geological range template family; this is just a notification so you know what's going on. The requested edit you fulfilled on the 16th wasn't well-thought-out by its requester and also hadn't been proposed in RfC format (as a substantial edit affecting thousands of articles should be). As it would happen, the requested edit broke thousands of taxoboxes, so it's been requested these be reverted until we have a chance to inspect the code. We're also in the process of deciding whether the edit should have even been carried out in the first place. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

POTD 2011-04-22

What's the protocol for editing the current POTD template? I had to read what you posted for today about 5 times to get it to scan right. I kept reading

...identifying him as the one the soldiers of the high priest Caiaphas are to arrest.

as if it was written

...identifying him as one of the soldiers of the high priest Caiaphas are to arrest.

IMHO it would be much better style to include the implied pronoun:

...identifying him as the one whom the soldiers of the high priest Caiaphas are to arrest. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C.

"revert back, not seeing the point of that, it wasn't consistent with the rest of the article either" - am attempting to bring consistency to the player data across all clubs, so while this may not necessarily be relevant purely to villa it is relevant in the context of making the data consistent? Mike Magowan (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your points. The reason I would have liked them changed would be so that the data (once structured consistently) could ultimately be used by systems such as DBPedia. It seems the majority of other clubs have the data as the 3 letter ISO codes but a few (such as Villa) use full country names. The reason I didn't do the other sections was that I was working my way through the clubs current squads then would have gone back and amended the other sections. Anyway - I guess there isn't much point pursuing further so will leave other clubs alone. Mike Magowan (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the news

Thanks for your feedback re my suggestion of a photo for In the News. I'm putting this note here as I understand the "errors" page is not meant for discussions. I'll watch this page.

I don't expect I will ever understand the rules around image use but I am wondering why an image that is okay in an article cannot be used in a news item related to the article. Why is that short-term use not a fair use? Thanks, CBHA (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PS - When I looked up Fair Use I found this. "Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." (Emphasis added.) Thanks, CBHA (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me explore this just a bit further please. Then I'll stop being a nuisance. I promise.

Okay, you would regard the image I suggested as merely decorative and that is not a sufficient reason to use the image. Would you consider the image of Harper currently there also be merely decorative, or of greater value? If the latter, what values are added? (I have to confess that the thought that Harper's image might be considered decorative boggles my mind.)

I wonder how the image of one historic person is only decorative and of another historic person is something more. Or is the point that a free image can properly be used in a decorative way whereas a non-free one cannot? Thanks, CBHA (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted that the free image of Harper currently there can be used even if it is merely decorative, is it only that or is it of greater value? If the latter, what type of values are added? CBHA (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Cross History

Reading of your interest in Victoria Crosses, I wonder if you know the story of Valour Road in Winnipeg, Canada. If not you might take a look sometime. It is not a great article but it is an amazing event. CBHA (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Woody, thanks for closing those ACRs. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Second that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Woody (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edward III

Thanks for your quick response. I've put the picture in the article now, so that should be ok. Another thing is that it's one of the NPG pictures there's been so much fuss about, but I guess we should leave those worries to the lawyers. Lampman (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Heskey

Hey dude, how is it in any way disruptive? XAssassinSkillz (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you not know about Almunia's captaincy of Spain or something? He lifted the World Cup last year idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XAssassinSkillz (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I must have missed something then...... :S Must have got them somehow mixed up XAssassinSkillz (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I was wondering if you could peer review El Salvador national football team.

Wikipedia:Peer review/El Salvador national football team/archive1

Thanks, Jaime070996 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added some of your suggestions. Please see the competitive record section in the article and other places of interest within the article. Does it appeal? May it be improved? Jaime070996 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to have a good look tomorrow. Woody (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the Peer Review. Woody (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the Peer Review. Jaime070996 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Should get a good look tomorrow and I'll have a go at the article. Woody (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. Jaime070996 22:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland

Hello: I noticed that you made Vaoverland's user page read-only shortly after his death. Now that his Wikipedia colleagues have had a chance to pay their last respects on his talk page, I think it might be good to make his talk page read-only as well, since it's starting to get littered with newsletters and template messages. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Online petition

This is unlikely to be happening any time soon: [1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

May 28 featured article of the day

Hello Woody, I left a note on Raul's page regarding a proposal for featured article for the day. I noticed your significant contribution in his page. Thats why I also turn to you for help. I would like to propose Azerbaijani people as featured article for May 28. I know its short, but there are excellent reasons. The date has a special meaning as it marks the Republic Day or Independence Day for the Azerbaijani people since 1918. It would mark the 93th anniversary. Unfortunately I dont quite understand the exact procedure on how to get a featured article of the day. I have readed this over and over, but still cant make heads and tales. Could you please help me on this matter? Neftchi (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Woody and thanks for your quick response. I was unaware that Azerbaijani people article was already a featured article of the day on August 6, 2006. Totally my bad. But Im glad you answered me because I noticed your excellent contribution to several featured articles. Right now Im working on the Azerbaijan article. It is already a good article, but I want to make it a featured article. However Im doing pretty much everything on my own and it would mean alot if somebody experienced as yourself could help me achieve this. I have requested a peer review on featured article standards, see here. And Im working through that list. Still its hard to do things on your own and I have asked around for help, no success for far. Any chance you could help me with getting the Azerbaijan page a featured states? Please let me know. Neftchi (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

re: Ash Power

Hello, Woody. You have new messages at Abraham, B.S.'s talk page.
Message added Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F)

Hi can you check List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F) Agansing Rai and Ali Haidar are in the 'A' section is this correct? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that must be the case, yes an explanation or a note could be useful. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second question in List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z) Theodore Wright has two dates entered and I cannot see why. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

British Armed Forces

You edited? It is already on the talk page and has been there a day. Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Villa Park

I think you made the page much poorer when you removed the Duran Duran photo on 3 April. Last year, I remember several Villa fans talking about it at work. It was in the section 'Other Uses', and guess what photo we have in that section - A football picture. WE ALREADY KNOW it's a football stadium. Another point is Rod Stewart has never played at Villa Park. Best Wishes

It was recommended in an article review (found here) that it was removed as it was too blurry to be comprehensible. It didn't inform the reader about anything in my opinion as you couldn't make anything out in it I'm afraid. If there was a clearer image of someone or something performing at Villa Park, that would be great. The source used (Inglis) states Stewart did perform and we go with what the sources say. Woody (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, which is well thought out and excellent. The only comment I would make is most photos of the MENCAP concert show Duran Duran up close and so could have been taken anywhere. The Sunday Mercury for instance http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/sundaymercuryexclusives/2009/07/18/nostalgia-when-duran-duran-rocked-aston-villa-ground-66331-24185719/ Best wishes and keep up the great work.

Talkback

Hello, Woody. You have new messages at LessHeard vanU's talk page.
Message added 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Looks like a duck to me The rabbit hole goes deeper... Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review issues

Hi - you recently reviewed an article and gave it a B-class (Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). I am looking to have it reviewed again for requirements to get it up to A or FL quality standards - but I am finding the procedures on the Military History Project page a little haphazard to follow in terms of archiving the B-class peer reviews, adding {{ArticleHistory}} tags, etc - it seems a bit awkward, and I am no newbie to web development methods by far. Please can you assist me in correctly getting the old review history archived and article talk page ready so that I can request a second peer review for higher level classes. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to jump the gun and request an ACR just yet, mainly because of the reason you state - lack of reviewers at the moment - having to give an informal PR must be easier in comparison to a formal ACR? But if you think it's the best option, I don't mind going with that. Having read the article yourself, maybe you can judge whether there's going to be too much for an ACR to have to explain reasons for declining it and if I'd be better off with another PR for a while first? Since your BCR a fair amount of extra text and citation has gone into the article, but whether it is of a high enough standard to warrant A class is not for me to say. But if you recommend an ACR based on the additional material, I'll go ahead with that - and would welcome advice on how to proceed. Thanks! Ma®©usBritish (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I really don't like that table now - looks hideous - "wikitable"s have no internal padding and are monotonous in colour, make my eyes go funny with all the borders and text jammed together against dull grey - the designer of it made it very unfriendly to look at, I think wikitables are wikis worst feature to be honest. Also the {{dts}} thing has lost the date ranges where battles covered a range of from-to dates, which is vital information given the historical relevance of the nature of battles. Reducing them all to 1 day events has taken away too much factual data, and research on my behalf and is of no benefit that I see. I personally wasn't particularly fussy about having the table sortable, it was a PR suggestion which I saw to as best I could - "display:none" was recommended in table:sorting instruction pages. What's wrong with HTML anyway, it's the backbone of the internet - has been for years - wiki just applies it oddly in some cases. No matter - can you please revert the table to its original look, I cannot continue working on it that design or layout it makes me cringe. Sorry. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, thought it might have been an oversight. Have followed your instructions per ACR entry, and submitted it. Will look into padding the table a couple of px - I can live with the dull graveyard colours - its the tightness I can't tolerate, no padding is bad - nothing to do with HTML, just a poor design concept to cram things into tables without any grace or concept of how visually striking they can be. Tables aren't just spreadsheets. I personally think the W3C took the whole tables vs divs thing overboard, but they never seem to get a version of XHTML or HTML complete or out of Draft these days, for years on end, so they've lost credit in my book for simply marketing services to their paying, and therefore influential industrial members. If you had any PR suggestions, however, they would be most welcome. I don't think the article could be expanded much further, only shaped and developed content/presentation wise - it is what it is really - a list of events 1 man went to. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - no problems. I see you've put a lot of thought into that table, and each cell. As a web developer (I prefer PHP coding to HTML web design but do both) I appreciate that Wiki has to be able to work on all platforms - machines, OS and browsers of all kinds and it can't afford to have the airs and graces a private website might have, with less support for archaic browsers - I personally don't support anything below IE7 and FF3 - but I don't expect millions of hits a day on my small personal sites. I am not too surprised that there are no similar FLs, to be honest I am disappointed with the level of disregard there is for Wellington, when Napoleon has a GA class article. To me, they were both as important - as a Brit I am probably expected to consider Wellington a National hero, and Napoleon his enemy, a "frog" etc.. but I do not class him as another dictator or anything like Hitler. To me they are equally important historical characters neither serving good nor evil - just doing their duty in a time of growing Empires (doesn't the romanticism just make you sick, lol). I think it important to get the main Wellington article back to GA class also, as well as supporting articles such as this Battle record, his Honours and titles page, etc. Perhaps after this reaches A or FL I will research Napoleons battle record too. I've read that he fought in 70 battles, and won 60 - it would be a huge task to dig them all up, but a nice article to balance against this one. Thanks again, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did you get a chance to take a look at the article? I have made various updates based on feedback, and am awaiting a little more. Unfortunately, another reviewer appears to be a little begrudging that I disagree with a couple of his remarks, but can't expect to please everyone.

I mentioned previously my intention to produce, and have now started, Napoleon's Battle Record also, which is in my Sandbox, although it is a very long way from completion, requiring confirmation of each battle and citations, I have the "bulk" of information in and a neat layout to include the various campaigns he was involved in thorough his long career spent on many battlefields. When you see that list, you begin to wonder WTF happened to the French come WW1/2 and how they developed the stereotype of being cowards or "runaways" after a Revolution and so many epic battles.. but then I look to the fleeting "British Empire", and it becomes clear.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies on my lack of review of this, I've been somewhat stretched for time in the past week but I hope next week I'll have the time to take a good look. Woody (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

—— Hi, I'm looking to conclude the ACR of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_record_of_Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington asap, but I am informed I require 3 reviewers who Support that the article meets A-class requirements. Could you please consider reviewing the article and stating whether you are satisfied that the article now meets the criteria. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep it does, but it also needs no actionable or constructive opposes for the closing Coord to be satisfied there is consensus for promotion. Frankly, I don't think you handled the AustralianRupert situation very well. He is only trying to improve the article and help it meet Wikipedia's standards. If you disagree with those standards, you can either try to change those standards, or come to accept those standards, or you can leave; don't shout at editors who are offering their time to help you. I should be able to offer my opinion on the article tomorrow evening. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe - unfortunately I feel he was over-demanding and held a grudge because I did not agree with all of his opinions. There is a clear difference between reviewing/suggesting changes which the other 2 did fine, and demanding/ordering changes which he started to do. His opinions regarding the footnotes were completely unreasonable and subjective - the 2 previous reviewers didn't raise an issue, so there was no consensus that it was at all confusing - and because I didn't want to do things his way he became petty. No matter, I don't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on a site this big - but I don't expect reviewers to abuse their "position" and become bureaucratic either - there is just as much work goes into creating and developing articles, as there is to reviewing them - so respect goes both ways, which I feel he lacked. No matter, he's withdrawn his right to review it further, and I have continued without further ado. Thanks for your frankness though, it is appreciated - I prefer a direct opinion than a verbose mincing words; life's too short to be super-nice all the time, just to convey a point. Unfortunately I don't take fools gladly, and whilst I appreciated AussieRupert's review, I found his lack of flexibility to his "requests" rather pushy. The article met the standards, just not his - in my opinion. As far as Wiki goes, we're all equals - I don't have to accept his personal suggestions as "right" and/or "must dos" and he should accept that too, without contempt. Look back at our indifference regarding Wikitables - you can see how that was handled well - I see your point with them, btw, they are pretty good once you get used to creating them.

Moving on, however, it seems to me the WP:MILHIST is terribly short of active reviewers these days - reviews seem to take a long time, and it always seems to be the same few people who bother, and they often admit to "not having knowledge" in many areas of the articles they are checking. Am I correct? I have done a bit of article tagging (adding task forces) and 1 Start-class review myself but there is a backlog as long as my arm in the Open Tasks page. So I gather the Project would welcome someone handling a couple of extra peer/A/B reviews a week to help take the weight? I'm asking you as you're list as a co-ordinator. Apart from making sure articles meet the criteria points - is there anything else I could be reading, like a MoS but for reviewing methods, on Wiki? Thanks again. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review - your 4 main issues have been fixed, and the other 2 comments responded to. I will look at the Signpost articles and familiarise myself with them - interesting that you say Wiki is suffering a "death of reviewers", as it looks like there is a lack of editors also in many Projects, unwilling to tackle backlogs, and meet targets (eg 500 FACs). Such is the short-term attention-span of a volunteer when it comes to sharing knowledge; I'm surprised there aren't at many butting-heads like those who debate in seas of arguments on YouTube over all sorts of trivial nonsense. Although I find myself unwilling to be too "dedicated" either sometimes, after isolated events such as that with AussieRupert, there is a bound to be a relapse of interest and down period where some people think "why do I bother?". I have a very thick skin, moreso face-to-face, and often find my frankness to be offensive to some, but acceptable to others.. can't win 'em all. Thanks again. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the ACR for Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington has "timed out", which is rather annoying given how much I've run around like a blue-arsed fly looking for a third reviewer, this month. Regardless, I have re-opened the ACR nomination. I hope I can count on your support again. There has been very little change to the article in the interim, couple of minor fixes at most, although I welcome any new comments. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

McLeish

Don't see why not. The betting public certainly thinks so, the way the odds shortened yesterday. Think he might well fancy working for a supportive owner, he's never had one in B9. Though I'm not sure how your lot would view playing for the draw at home to the likes of Wigan? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Scheer

Thanks for assessing the article on German cruiser Admiral Scheer. I have found two references for the claims tagged and added them. Would you mind to have another look? Regards --FJS15 (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, replied over at WP:MHA#REQ. Woody (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Field Marshals

Thanks for fixing my oversight. Do you think the cross section between FMs who are (were) VC recipients is worthy of an article of its own? It would be small, but I for one think the criss section between the highest gallantry award and the highest attainable rank is fascinating! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

HMS Prince of Wales

Hi Woody, you are more experienced than I in WP MOS, and general operations. What's your opinion on this edit [2]. In or out? Cheers, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxhound66

I noticed you blocked Amandalu862 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Foxhound66/Jeneral28 per this SPI. Mphil1805 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also listed in the report, was created on the day of the last block (June 30) of one of his socks (Cibwins2885), and has edited similar articles (including the talk page for Toto (band), an article Foxhound had an interest in). Do you think the behavioural evidence here is enough for that to be blocked too? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was initially slightly wary of both of them but their were far too many intersecting articles and I needed a bit more time to look into it. I have blocked Mphil1805 as a sock of Foxhound66 now. The Amandalu account was ever so slightly odd as well don't you think? Either way, as you note they are blocked as well. I'm sure some more will pop up soon. Woody (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Darlo et al

Hello. I'm back-ish, still on the borrowed netbook but files successfully recovered from the old hard drive and new laptop in the pipeline. Certainly picked a lively time to disappear, a cynic might think I'd done it on purpose :-) Re Darlington, I just wish they'd TALK... Tried quite hard last time to persuade them that all the recent detail belonged in a season article, not in the main club page. If they'd accept that, we'd be getting somewhere. I do take their point that both club and players need better updating than they're getting: hoped the GA nominator might want to keep it up-to-date, but the infobox still has the 2009/10 kit and the squad claims to have been last updated in April, so I'm not holding my breath. Give my love to the ginger Scotsman, I'll always be grateful for the League Cup but won't miss his style of football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wellington ACR

Hi, the ACR for Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington has "timed out", which is rather annoying given how much I've run around like a blue-arsed fly looking for a third reviewer, this month. Regardless, I have re-opened the ACR nomination. I hope I can count on your support again. There has been very little change to the article in the interim, couple of minor fixes at most, although I welcome any new comments. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've had a look at the strategy page you linked. I would have to say that I'm probably too "green" at the moment when it comes to the more involved parts of Wiki. I can easily copy-edit and create articles, and upload images, but that's about my limit so far given that I only started back in February this year - as you saw this morning, I even messed up archiving/re-nominating this ACR which you had to fix. I think it would be inappropriate of me to be too critical of any WikiProject given that I only know a small percent of what you do from my own article nomination - so far I've only been involved in asking for 1 PR, 1 BCR and 2 ACR all for that same article. Although I have given a PR this past week in order to get acquainted with offering advice as well as asking for it; I haven't come across a B/ACR in any area that I feel I knew enough on to comment on yet, though. I'm sure one will turn up eventually. I have added myself to the Project member list, also as a copy-editor, and created a Library in my User namespace to offer addition sourcing support in various areas. Given time, I should be able to identify my thoughts on strengths and weaknesses of the project and then offer them up on the page you linked, when it won't seem like I'm preaching to the choir or over-stepping my level too early. If you read back on the tête-à-tête you mentioned, you will see some people think their experience as a long-term reviewer carries some weight and obviously demand respect. Whilst that's not my way of handling people (that is, I respect people on a 1:1 basis, not like a sycophant based on merit alone), it probably wouldn't be a good idea for a "freshman" to go treading on any [more] toes just yet.. ;) I will, however, aim to offer my opinions at some point in the near future, no worries - please do drop me a reminder if I haven't posted anything by a few weeks time, my short-term memory is a little sloppy these days. There are some questions on there that I have never considered, to be able to comment on with certainty just yet. I'm sure I will once I get a wider scope of the project and Wiki in general. Thanks again for your support - I have a further article in sandbox development - Napoleon's battle record - though it's much more extensive, and covers a larger period, where Wellington's battles were more or less all on the Peninsular, and India, Napoleon was in about 70 battles all across Europe/Russia, including several campaigns and many countries. Lots more to consider; I'm hoping my experience from writing Wellington's article will help me learn from my mistakes to get this one right first time, for when I eventually request a review. Perhaps by then I can look to making them FLA articles - they should make a nice set of lists to compare, for any military historian. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, again, not sure what can be improved without knowing more about what already exists. The only think I can think of is that this project seems to ignore List-class ratings, which seems like a pointless exclusion given that there are many lists and giving them Start-class seems a little degrading or throws too many eggs into one basket - Quality ratings should be inline with the rest of Wiki and allow a greater range of class types rather than removing a couple for unclear reasons. I also feel there is a little too much snobbishness amongst members - it's all well and good to have written and reviewed a lot of articles, but if someone feels the need to push their POV, status or degree in peoples faces, they really need to piss-off and write a book with all that ego, and make a living. Perhaps the difference between volunteer Wiki critics and real-world critics will teach them not to be so presumptuous. Though to be fair that's an attitude I see Wiki-wide, not just here - although historians are often the worst for thinking they have some special ability to analyse and criticise others further than is socially acceptable - but because history requires a lot of research and subjective opinion, there is always some bias. So it's little wonder that there is a small amount of conflict during reviews. Being offered an unbiased peer review is one thing, being told "your article is wrong, this is my view AND it's right AND unless you change it I oppose you" is another, which I personally will never tolerate. People can't help themselves, though. I think that's why there may be this "dearth" (never seen the word before you used it) of reviewers - historians are more prone to debate than open-mindedness, and don't seem very flexible when it comes to offering support. There needs to be a clear distinction between Wiki standards, and personal standards - at the moment it seems to me people can be over-bearing with their personal standards and only quote Wiki standards when it suits to support their ulterior motive. Perhaps it is best those type stay away, to keep things amicable. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the first is utterly pointless as it can't be cited because mine is the first example of Wellington's full battle record that I have ever seen, and the first to summarise his record as a result - which I'm sure I already said to AR, and he expected my to pull a ref out of thin air.. if people can't accept that someone is going to be the first to actually put something down in words, as a result of their research, and not have quoted someone directly, then what's the point in authoring anything? I mean, if I had listed all the known stars in the sky I might cite "NASA", but in this case, no historian/biographer, to my knowledge, has done what I've done- hence why I've done it. So what I've written there is my own conclusion but NOT based on Original research because the table contains ~100 citations to support the conclusion fully. I think it would be unprofessional to put (see table) or any such note to support the first tag, given that the table follows the claim. As for the second tag, it's already a work in progress, per Alexandru's review, which I secured and am very pleased with, bar his final point which I have raised concerns over. That 4th para is likely to be removed or rewritten soon, after I discuss if further with Alexandru who raised the point that is was not a good summary. Which I agree, it is too short a summary that needs expansion, preferably. Even I can admit to being fallible, though.

To reiterate this further: "... mostly whilst serving in the Napoleonic Wars during which Britain played a major role in securing Europe against French occupation between 1803 and 1815." a) We know they were the Napoleonic Wars; b) We know Britain fought in them; c) We know we fought the French in Europe; d) The table lists battles between 1803 and 1815 (plus, anyone reading about Wellington/Napoleon knows Waterloo ended it all, at the very least). What is there, really, to cite that is not a self-contained fact? I feel trying to cite this sentence would be equivalent to WP:BLUE. Don't you think? Regardless, I have no source to cite because its self-referring, so the tag can either stay or you might want to reconsider based on the example I just gave and remove it. I've done my best finding those ~60 battles as it is without trying to find someone who may have summarised Wellington's career in similar words. I've already bought about 4 extra books just for that table, I dread to think what Napoleon's record will cost me to fully cite all his engagements. =\ Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Second has now been eliminated due to rewrite of 4th para. First one still needs your attention, based on my previous comment and concern regarding it being a misconstrued requirement, in this case, and is a flawed citation request. Given that the request was initially raised by AR, unless anyone can actually substantiate it further, I shall remove it myself based on my own analysis as WP:BLUE trivial as it only serves to uglify the article and waste time as I won't be looking to change/cite it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Referenced. That do? Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank ya! Ma®©usBritish (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woody. You have new messages at WP:Main Page/Errors.
Message added 22:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus 22:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FSC or GCS

I think Alphawulf is correct, in that the Future Surface Combatant is long dead, the Programme has for a long time now been the Type 26 Global Combat Ship (Just refer to Hansard or BAE etc). I think Wikipedia should reflect the change and update to the current active programme as opposed to still confusing every body with a dead programme. The article also has a lot of inaccuracy and lacks structure. My two cents anyway. Recon.Army (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

btw whats the copyright issue you spoke of? Recon.Army (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's OK! I just miss understood, thought you meant the use of the name Type 26 Global Combat Ship was copyright. hehe. Umm yep, good idea to get a discussion going on the talk page the article needs our attention! Recon.Army (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When would you say is the best time to go ahead and bring wiki up to-date with the Global Combat Ship? If you're short of time I could go ahead and get at least a decent article going, it can then fat-out with the help of other editors in the coming days. Recon.Army (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense! More editors who have knowledge on the subject the better. Recon.Army (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University

Hi there, given that the main editor causing problems at the article has now been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet, I think the protection could probably be removed again now. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Topic help

Hi mate, I saw you were the nominator for the Aston Villa F.C. featured topic, and I was hoping to get some advice regarding the creation of a Manchester United F.C. featured topic. As well as the club's main article, I'm currently hoping to include:

• Old Trafford
• History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945)
• History of Manchester United F.C. (1945–1969)
• History of Manchester United F.C. (1969–1986)
• History of Manchester United F.C. (1986–present)
• List of Manchester United F.C. seasons
• List of Manchester United F.C. players
• List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)
• List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)
• List of Manchester United F.C. managers
• List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

However, I've noticed that the Ipswich Town F.C. and York City F.C. featured topics also include lists of those clubs' Players of the Year. Given that Sir Matt Busby Player of the Year exists, do you think that should be included as well? There are a couple of others that I think could be included, but I'd like to get your opinion on the content of the topic. Assuming I can get all of the aforementioned articles to FA or GA status, do you think they would be sufficient for a featured topic? Thanks for your help. – PeeJay 16:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or

File:Pallonedoro.svg	Best Football Contributor
	For your contribution to the Premier League and protecting it from vandalism. Ballon d'or (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Santos FC

Hello. I have been looking for editors that like football to peer review a few pages I have done on my own. I have seen your track record and I would like to ask if you would be willing to take a look at it and give your imput. A lot of editors seem to value your opinion and I don't think it is an accident. I understand you tend to lean more towards English clubs but I am sure you would like the opportunity to learn a little about Pelé's team. It has come a long way frim this.

Regards, Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. ;) I should be able to devote some time to it tomorrow or possibly the weekend. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?

On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I believe young Bryce's recent behaviour or more specifically, his stated justification for it, is unacceptable. (c.f.) Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

I have nominated List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Help pages

Hi Woody, how's it going?

Can you tell me if there are any special requirements for writing "advice" or help pages? I've seen a lot of these on people's user spaces, as well as "official" wiki help pages. I've been answering a lot of WP:RFF requests lately, and found that they mostly come from newbies and inexperienced editors - so I wrote MarcusBritish/Feedback advice, but I don't know if I'm okay to just let people read it, or if it needs approving by an admin or via some page I don't know of? Can you advise me, please.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 12:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there might be something like that needed to disassociate it a little from standard help pages, but wasn't sure what. I've gone with the {{Guidance essay}} one, as I like its wording a bit more. Things seem awfully quiet on MilHist at the moment.. someone fall off a cliff or something, or are lengthy quiet periods not uncommon? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, do we have to vote once nominees are known? Could be interesting, I haven't been round long enough to witness some "hype" in the project yet, like running for a coord post - I've been doing these little RFF's for a short while - really easy as most are stub/start level and 9 times in 10 are just lacking notability or in need of MOS copy-edits, which I like doing, but I've been doing so many people are now leaving me personal requests, I even found a "Dear MarcusBritish, please review my article" on the RFF page, so embarrassing, lol.. bless 'im. It's easier working with newbies than veterans sometimes.. ;) I was looking at possibly requesting Rollback rights.. now I've dipped my toes into RfF and AfD, but on reading about it, it doesn't seem anything more than what Twinkle offers, which I use.. would you recommend I request it, and do you think they'll accept based on my record, or do I perhaps need more experience in dealing with vandalism (which I don't come across often, really)? I'm not interested in being an admin or anything grandiose like that, but a bit more involvement in things, one of those small roles that keeps things running couldn't hurt, I support.. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 06:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Didn't realise any admin could grant it, so much appreciated. Will keep a look out for the coord voting message. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Saniwa

Apologies for that revert. My intention was to correct the spelling of Dr Baron G. J. de Fejérváry's name which I did on my first edit today. The second edit was unintentional and I must have just hit the wrong key. Very embarassing. Thanks for your patience. Orenburg1 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Victoria Cross for Australia

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Victoria Cross for Australia. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested at List of castles in England

You may remember reviewing this page for B class in June. I submitted it for peer review in July, a move which I now unreservedly regret. I have just made a new contribution to the talk page, I should be glad if you would be kind enough to take a look and say what you think. Regards, Paravane (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should very much like for you to read it also - the content makes several aspersions against my tagging the article {{very long}}, challenges my edits which were praised in the above-mentioned peer review, and the invite for a consensus is opened in an non-neutral tone, with deplorable comments and doubts cast on my "agenda" for tagging the article. I feel there are ownership-behaviours being exhibited here, by Paravane, who is overly protective of the article, and in his defence against splitting it (note, 4 editors agree it should be split) he has made unwarranted commentary regarding my support for the peer review, where I gave extensive input. You also commented favourably upon my peer review [3], so it does not seem unreasonably of my to consider why Paravane rescind his thanks for it also, except in anger at my concerns over the article in question. There are policies are guidelines - I feel Paravane has pushed the etiquette policies in his last remarks on the talk page, and has pushed the WP:SIZERULE to it's limits - the guideline suggests that articles be split as 100Kb - it is not 2.5x that, and I, and other find the page load time, and ability to save edits strains both server and browser. I have commented on Paravane's talk page, regarding my disapproval of his accusations and lack of collaboration regarding this matter - thus far he has not made any attempt to consider alternatives, only to accuse people of complaining, as well as pointing the blame at me for making edits he approved of from the peer review before I knew there was a sizerule. I, and others have made suggestions - and each time he has taken his own course - we suggest splitting, he removes the maps contributed by another editor. We sill say it is too big, he says we are complaining. If this is not possessive behaviour, IDK what is. Regardless, whilst I opened a discussion already, Paravane has quickly ignored it and started another one - opening it with unwarranted remarks against myself, chocolate-coated his own work, and unbalanced the POV. That is, nothing else, bad faith and must be removed and the consensus opened without a campaigning tone. I don't know how you feel about that, but clearly my edits to the article are few, mostly made during the peer review. I have made 23 edits to 653 of his. Need I say more - with a gaping difference of 630 edits, I've barely touched it, so it is uncalled for to question my motives, good faith - as I have stated numerous times that oversized articles cause accessibility issues - or agenda. I think I "unreservedly regret" his peer review too.. he's too quick to turn things around to suit him and cannot accept criticism. Given the length and detail of me peer review, and the rather begrudging thanks I got, it obviously wasn't worth the key strokes. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 01:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see you back

Hi Woody, I don't know your reasons for reducing or ceasing activity but I'm sure it wasn't a decision made lightly. Always considered you a bit of an institution at MilHist, so good luck whatever you do and hope to see you around here again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I rather belatedly endorse those sentiments. It's always sad to see a constructive editor get hounded out to the the point of quitting. Hope to see you back here soon. All the best. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Sorry to see you won't be round as much. Your encouragement and support has not gone unnoticed. Take care, during your semi-retirement! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona page

I have noticed that the FC Barcelona page has been semi-protected for a week as a consequence of a edit war between me and the user, Marcospace. I fully agree with the decision but I think it is clear for all to see that he is wrong as he is deleting correct information without reason whatsoever.

I have included the duration of the loans and the full names of the clubs who have loaned the players in the "out of loan" section of the main page.

For some reason Marcospace have repeatedly deleted my edits and only written the name of the clubs (one wihtout it's full name, VfL Wolfsburg) and removed the duration of the loans, which I find completely unnecessary and somehow strange as this is (take a look at other Wikipedia articles concerning football clubs) and was the usual procedure in the FC Barcelona article before our "edit war".

I also wrote several times (as can be seen when looking at my edits and the comments that follow with them) why he keep deleting my edits but without any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad

I really am glad that you have finally come to your senses and largely given up. You're persistent over use of wikipedia guidelines to mask your own agenda-driven violations of WP:IDL, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV marked you out as someone who took their role here way to seriously.

Good you have quit...like most admins who get enamoured by their own unquestionable power on this database of self-interest-driven articles, you cannot win, that is Jimbo's profit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.122.105 (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

imported edit attribution issue

I noticed meta:Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2011-03#Attribution being infringed by wikimedia due to SUL. I've noticed the same issue and brought it up at meta:Babel#importing edits and then refusing to attribute them properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed it too and came here to inform you. Have you noticed that Danish Wikipedia now allows usurpations even if the account has edits? You might wish to try to usurp the account again. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Garter - Members

What guidelines??? Nford24 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2011 (AEST)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons covers it all. Woody (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Woody,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Flacid micropenis2 highres.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Flacid micropenis2 highres.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Another VC list

Hi Woody I have started another VC list User:Jim Sweeney/List of Victoria Cross recipients in the cavalry would you mind if I borrowed some of your introduction, from the other lists? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on March 11, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/March 11, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ninety-four Canadians, or people closely associated with Canada, have been awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest war honour of the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, for extraordinary valour and devotion to duty while facing a hostile force. The first Canadian to be awarded the Victoria Cross was Alexander Roberts Dunn, for his actions at the Battle of Balaclava (part of the Crimean War) in 1854. Seventy-one Victoria Crosses were awarded to Canadians for their actions in the First World War, and sixteen medals were awarded during the Second World War. William Hall (pictured), a Nova Scotian, was the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. The last living Canadian recipient, "Smokey" Smith, died in August 2005. The Victoria Cross was last awarded to a Canadian in 1945. Canadians have not been eligible for the British Victoria Cross since 1993, when it was replaced by a new Canadian Victoria Cross, which has yet to be awarded.

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Aye there, 'Woody', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss

Hello,

I went as far as I could on nominating this article for A Class. When the popup template didn't happen/couldn't be located, I paused and asked Ian Rose for help. Another editor then edited the talk page banners while Ian repeated the same useless advice I found in WP section on A Class nominations. Now you have decided I can't nominate the article after all.

This is the third time I have tried to submit an article for A Class review, and the third time I have failed at the same point and been refused help. If I could ever learn to get past this same snag, I could add some first rate articles to WP. As it is, why should I bother making the article the best I can? I obviously should settle for "good enough"—that is, either B Class, or ignore the assessment process entirely as I have been.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pete Saunders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Thank you for taking some time to go through WP:RFPP, as it has been getting backlogged a lot recently. However, you declined my request for protection of My Name Is My Name for their not being enough recent activity. However, there was dubious unsourced addition, unsourced addition, dubious unsourced addition, mass dubious unsourced change, dubious unsourced change, and minor incorrect change, all by different IPs/users in the last four-five days. I mean if it was not for me actively reverting this edits, I could just imagine the crappy shape the article would be in. Considering the album is going to be released in less than a month, many more are sure to come, after all more than half of those diffs took place in the last few hours. I thought might as well strike while the iron is hot. The article had been protected less than a month ago, and I would hate to have to report the article again once I have five more unsourced changes, just to have to wait a day (and the report to become stale) due to the current lack of attention to WP:RFPP. But either way, I respect your decision and thank you for your time. STATic message me! 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Static, thanks for leaving me a message about this. This is one of those very awkward articles that fall on the boundaries of protection. The additions are not vandalism per se, certainly not clear cut instances of vandalism. For every unsourced dubious edit there is one edit that is good and not reverted and that is the issue I had with protecting that article. New users are always going to make a mistake and not know the guidelines of Wikipedia, at least one of the edits you list could fall under the bracket of misguided newbie. The trouble is when you have large numbers of those edits it can get very tiresome. I understand your frustration (particularly with a lot of footballers on my watchlist where this is a perennial problem). Let me know in a few days if there are still significant issues and I will look at protecting it for a while. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive response, some administrators can be very condescending when you question their decisions haha. I do understand though, because there have been a few minor spelling/grammar mistakes fixed by IPs recently, and the most recent one (an IP actually added a reference, you do not understand my level of shock). All joking aside, that sounds fine I will stop by here if it resumes. STATic message me! 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you declined Insidious: Chapter 2 protection request. Another editor commented on it at WP:RFPP and if you see the history of the page there is a lot of vandalism, including the whole plot being rewrote by an IP. At the least I believe the page requires pending changes so someone can review the changes before they go up. Thanks in advance. STATic message me! 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fly Union & The Greater Than Club

Could you please review the articles that I wrote for Fly Union and TGTC (The Greater Than Club). Feedback would be greatly appreciated as these are the first two articles that I have ever written on Wikipedia. Malcolmrevere (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clan Hay - Red links

Hi, I was not aware of the Wikipedia policy on red links, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. However I will shortly be carrying out further works to the Clan Hay article. There is a lot of unsourced information in the history section that I would like to get referenced up. I will not be touching any of the existing sourced information.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pier Paolo Pasolini

That's what I did, and I tried to use the talk page but he doesn't want to reach consensus when I already told him why I took salo off the template. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for updating Infobox company! Db9023 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing Battle of Panipat (1761)

Hi Woody, can you help me with the edition of this page . I want this to be included in that page.: With both sides poised for battle, there followed much maneuvering, with skirmishes between the two armies fought at Karnal and Kunjpura. Kunjpura, on the banks of the Yamuna River 60 miles to the north of Delhi, was guarded by Najabat Khan . Abdali has stored a large number of arms and ammuniatian along with food and fodder for his army.The Marathas attacked the fort on 17th october , 1760 the whole Afghan garrison was killed or enslaved. Najabat Khan was killed in this skirmish and many Afghan generals of note were killed in this battle.Qutub shah , who had killed Dattaji Shindhia was cought alive by Damaji Gaikwad and was executed on the orders of Sadashivrao Bhau.[32]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Woody@dewiki

Hi Woody, the owner of the account Woody@dewiki has been renamed per self-request. You can now use your account on dewiki. Regards, IW 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11