I'm not convinced it's necessary to change "Panzerlehr" or variants (like "Panzer Lehr") to "Panzerlehrdivision" across all those articles. They also use, for example, "7th Armoured" instead of "the 7th Armoured Division", which is basically the same thing. What do you think? EyeSerene talk 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I must correct you - the quote is actually from Radio Berlin! There has been now for some time a vandal/fascist ( User:Generalmesse) making the rounds on wikipedia with a plethora of socks inserting text about the heroic exploits of the grand Italian Army in WWII... (see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Generalmesse). His source was all the times the New York Times,... but on closer inspection it turned out that the Times articles in question were actually the communiques of Radio Berlin printed verbatim in the Times! examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],... I have not seen him doing a lot of his vandalism lately (but as the closely related sock circus around user:Brunodam proves) he is still very active in topics about Italian military history, Italians in Croatia and the Falkland Wars... anyway- in short: the quote is directly taken from Radio Berlin and cited as such in the original New York Times article - but the text of it is not from the New York Times but from the Propaganda Ministerium of Goebbles. a totally unreliable source, which can only be used in the proper context! Therefore I remove the quote now again. If you happen to stumble upon further quotes of this type - delete/revert/report. Don't bother to discuss. (btw. more of this "user" can be found by having a look at user:Giovanni Giove). -- noclador ( talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
== Hello Enigma, very good information you have. Which Uni are you at or were you at? I went to Wloverhampton.. Bruichladdich1(talk) 02:03, 01 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently I think the person this article pertains to is Rolf Möbius. At least Agte also calls him Rolf Möbius. When I made the change I was under the impression that Mobius is definitely wrong. The internet however is full of a panzer commander of the name Karl Möbius. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: The article mentions a Major Wenck and later the same? person is referred to as Wenke. Are these two different people or one misspelling? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So...second FAC closed :( I'm a bit baffled as to where to go next with this one. I honestly can't see much wrong with the article, and I think the constant demands for copyediting have actually made the overall prose worse. This is no fault of those generous enough to give their time to help out; it's the result of a tweak here, a bit there, etc because due to FAC time pressures copyeditors can't look at the article in its entirety. However, if you want to go again (!) I suppose we could try a milhist PR first? EyeSerene talk 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the article and can't really fathom why it's having such a hard time - it's no different to other articles we've put through FAC - but of course there's always room for improvement so further copyediting is a good idea. Like you, I'm not convinced about presenting the casualties in a table. However, I think the section could possibly be condensed by summarising and footnoting some of the detail. If you don't mind me taking another crack at it, I was planning to wait a week or so and come to it fresh; what I then thought about doing was asking someone like Roger, Karanacs or Awadewit to proofread. If Steve or Maralia are willing to continue though, the more the merrier (as long as we aren't all working at the same time!) EyeSerene talk 08:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
== Greetings Enigma, just seen your work on the Charnwood page. Very informative. Hope you're having a proper student new year.... and if not, why not? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recce regt: it corresponds to the Armoured Car Regt of Organisation III - so if you think it is better to change the symbol and the text to a simple Armoured Car Regt and remove the recce symbol, I will do that. Regarding the makeup of the support group: obviously we should do two graphics one for Organisation II and one for Organisation III - but there are some questions: the text at British Army during World War II#Armoured division says:
so... could you please help me settle on the exact structure for the support group that I should put into the graphic, before I begin to work on it. thanks, -- noclador ( talk) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the graphic now according to the information in the article British Armoured formations of the Second World War - as the info was a lot I created a new graphic named Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1939. Only one problem remains: for the Machine Gun Company there is no space left in the 1944 graphic... so either we throw something out, lengthen the Div. troop branch of all 3 graphics or do not include the Machine Gun Company... the decision is up to you. -- noclador ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I've got this on my watchlist, and it's looking great. Nick-D ( talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Enigma, would you mind having a look at the Epsom discussion page? I've put a question on and I would be interested in you opinion. Ta. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome; it was about time I was able to (somewhat) repay EyeSerene! :) If you would like further clarification/explaination on any points, or would like me to have another look then to do hesitate to ask. I wish you luck when you decide to have another crack at FAC, and look forward to supporting the article's elevation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 12:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I did make some tweaks the other day, but the PC I was working on decided to update and restart before I'd saved them (bloody Microsoft crap). I'll get on it asap :) EyeSerene talk 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look. If both are using McGilvray, the Hill 262 article is likely to be the more definitive. It was a while ago, but IIRC I noticed the same thing and made some changes to Tractable while I was writing up stuff for Hill 262 from McGilvray; obviously I wasn't thorough enough :P EyeSerene talk 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seen the book by VIII Corps on offer at £5.20, snapped it up. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No argument with that :) I'm currently going through the stuff you've added to the talk page and incorporating it into the Analysis section. Bearing in mind that I haven't finished, what do you think? (One question btw, the sentence I've added a fact tag to, I wasn't sure if that was your commentary on the talk page or still D'Este) EyeSerene talk 10:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, hope you had a good Christmas holiday. I'm surprised to have to write to you re this, but anyway: when you removed the 'East Lancashire' from the 66th Division link page, you broke the link to the 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. Please try and avoid this in future. Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Greetings Earthling; in the Great War the effort to break into enemy defences was usually a slow costly business on a narrow part of the front, which was susceptible to enfilade from the flanks and which cut up the ground captured making a breakout so slow that the defenders could rebuild field defences faster than the attacker could advance. SA Hart's analysis of Monty's Colossal Cracks sums it rather well; narrow front attacks in depth allow the defender to concentrate resources in a small area which gets more and more congested and ploughed up and wide front attacks don't have the weight to overcome C20th weapons which deny areas to the attacker with firepower rather than manpower. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[10] Much appreciated :) EyeSerene talk 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
A very apposite quote. I've come to the opinion that while our friend is active we're not going to make much progress. I'm involved, so I've requested other eyes on the situation at the milhist coords page; I think we might have to resort to page protection + further blocks to get things back on track. There are still sections of the notes you've added to the talk page that I'd like to include (particularly re whether the attack was ever going to achieve its aims) and I'm working on that Caumont Gap map, so there's a little way to go. We'll get there though :) EyeSerene talk 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Way back at the end of November last year, you added a bunch of references citing Buckley, Reid and Hart in the M4 Sherman article, but didn't seem to add full citations for the books. Could you add them please? Hohum 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting find. Though I say so myself, I think we all did a damn good job on that article :) EyeSerene talk 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
while goodwood, a allied sherman rammed a king tiger and disables him. its not in the article now but funny, isnt it? maybe u can put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
[
[11]]
Blablaaa (
talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I know that User:Blablaaa can be uncivil, but I don't think that the tone of your recent comments on their talk page is helpful. Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning, though if you're concerned about the neutrality and speculation of the source you could attribute. Maybe something like "Marie records that after the Germans reoccupied V-B, some soldiers took reprisals against the civilian population in isolated incidents of looting and arson, including the burning a number of houses and shops, and the town hall. Forty notes that such lapses in discipline were severely punished." Your call :) EyeSerene talk 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw your note at Operation Normandy - is this the e-book version you're referring to? If not then, well... here's another copy for you! Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
MisterBee1966 (
talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy to. Should have some time this evening, so I'll start nitpicking then! Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The World War Barnstar | |
I know that Wiki is a community project and all that, but it's obviously you behind most of the Battle of Villers-Bocage article, and you blatently deserve this (and I'm sure EyeSerene will agree with me!). I don't think I've seen such a detailed description and well put together compilation of sources for a battle in some time. If it was a chapter of a book, I'd buy it. Ranger Steve ( talk) 12:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
I don't have that one, i can check a few places and contacts of mine to see if they might though... Cam ( Chat) 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we're about ready, with one outstanding issue - do you think the lead needs trimming? EyeSerene talk 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the book you mentioned Enigma? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to mention - I'm happy to have a crack at a tactical map if we can source it, though I'm not sure that we can realistically go into much more detail than the ambush map already there. We can give it a go though if you like. EyeSerene talk 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Pints all round, finally :) EyeSerene talk 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
here maybe some interesting stuff for u: [ [12]] Blablaaa ( talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to be the fly on the wall in #10 today. If you need stats please feel free to inquire @ my talk page.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando. Would you mind reviewing my changes and stating whether I've addressed them adequately or not? Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, While I'd normally be happy to look into this kind of dispute, since my indef block of Blablaaa was over-turned, he/she is likely to complain about unfair treatment if I intervene in this matter with an admin hat on. As such, I'd suggest you ask another admin (or admins) to look into this. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
My two penn'orth: first, apologies that I've only just seen this (I don't edit much over the weekend). Second, it looks like things have blown over now. However, I pretty much agree with Nick/Jim/Keith here and elsewhere, and would echo Nick's advice that if it's not a substantiated objection with reference to sources, I'd ignore it. It's really not worth getting into a slanging match. I'm not really able to act in an admin capacity on those articles, being WP:INVOLVED, but you can always post to ANI or (perhaps better for a more informed intervention) the milhist coords' talk page. Best, EyeSerene talk 11:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's necessary to change "Panzerlehr" or variants (like "Panzer Lehr") to "Panzerlehrdivision" across all those articles. They also use, for example, "7th Armoured" instead of "the 7th Armoured Division", which is basically the same thing. What do you think? EyeSerene talk 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I must correct you - the quote is actually from Radio Berlin! There has been now for some time a vandal/fascist ( User:Generalmesse) making the rounds on wikipedia with a plethora of socks inserting text about the heroic exploits of the grand Italian Army in WWII... (see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Generalmesse). His source was all the times the New York Times,... but on closer inspection it turned out that the Times articles in question were actually the communiques of Radio Berlin printed verbatim in the Times! examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],... I have not seen him doing a lot of his vandalism lately (but as the closely related sock circus around user:Brunodam proves) he is still very active in topics about Italian military history, Italians in Croatia and the Falkland Wars... anyway- in short: the quote is directly taken from Radio Berlin and cited as such in the original New York Times article - but the text of it is not from the New York Times but from the Propaganda Ministerium of Goebbles. a totally unreliable source, which can only be used in the proper context! Therefore I remove the quote now again. If you happen to stumble upon further quotes of this type - delete/revert/report. Don't bother to discuss. (btw. more of this "user" can be found by having a look at user:Giovanni Giove). -- noclador ( talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
== Hello Enigma, very good information you have. Which Uni are you at or were you at? I went to Wloverhampton.. Bruichladdich1(talk) 02:03, 01 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently I think the person this article pertains to is Rolf Möbius. At least Agte also calls him Rolf Möbius. When I made the change I was under the impression that Mobius is definitely wrong. The internet however is full of a panzer commander of the name Karl Möbius. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: The article mentions a Major Wenck and later the same? person is referred to as Wenke. Are these two different people or one misspelling? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So...second FAC closed :( I'm a bit baffled as to where to go next with this one. I honestly can't see much wrong with the article, and I think the constant demands for copyediting have actually made the overall prose worse. This is no fault of those generous enough to give their time to help out; it's the result of a tweak here, a bit there, etc because due to FAC time pressures copyeditors can't look at the article in its entirety. However, if you want to go again (!) I suppose we could try a milhist PR first? EyeSerene talk 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the article and can't really fathom why it's having such a hard time - it's no different to other articles we've put through FAC - but of course there's always room for improvement so further copyediting is a good idea. Like you, I'm not convinced about presenting the casualties in a table. However, I think the section could possibly be condensed by summarising and footnoting some of the detail. If you don't mind me taking another crack at it, I was planning to wait a week or so and come to it fresh; what I then thought about doing was asking someone like Roger, Karanacs or Awadewit to proofread. If Steve or Maralia are willing to continue though, the more the merrier (as long as we aren't all working at the same time!) EyeSerene talk 08:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
MisterBee1966 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
== Greetings Enigma, just seen your work on the Charnwood page. Very informative. Hope you're having a proper student new year.... and if not, why not? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recce regt: it corresponds to the Armoured Car Regt of Organisation III - so if you think it is better to change the symbol and the text to a simple Armoured Car Regt and remove the recce symbol, I will do that. Regarding the makeup of the support group: obviously we should do two graphics one for Organisation II and one for Organisation III - but there are some questions: the text at British Army during World War II#Armoured division says:
so... could you please help me settle on the exact structure for the support group that I should put into the graphic, before I begin to work on it. thanks, -- noclador ( talk) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the graphic now according to the information in the article British Armoured formations of the Second World War - as the info was a lot I created a new graphic named Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1939. Only one problem remains: for the Machine Gun Company there is no space left in the 1944 graphic... so either we throw something out, lengthen the Div. troop branch of all 3 graphics or do not include the Machine Gun Company... the decision is up to you. -- noclador ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I've got this on my watchlist, and it's looking great. Nick-D ( talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Enigma, would you mind having a look at the Epsom discussion page? I've put a question on and I would be interested in you opinion. Ta. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome; it was about time I was able to (somewhat) repay EyeSerene! :) If you would like further clarification/explaination on any points, or would like me to have another look then to do hesitate to ask. I wish you luck when you decide to have another crack at FAC, and look forward to supporting the article's elevation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 12:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I did make some tweaks the other day, but the PC I was working on decided to update and restart before I'd saved them (bloody Microsoft crap). I'll get on it asap :) EyeSerene talk 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look. If both are using McGilvray, the Hill 262 article is likely to be the more definitive. It was a while ago, but IIRC I noticed the same thing and made some changes to Tractable while I was writing up stuff for Hill 262 from McGilvray; obviously I wasn't thorough enough :P EyeSerene talk 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seen the book by VIII Corps on offer at £5.20, snapped it up. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No argument with that :) I'm currently going through the stuff you've added to the talk page and incorporating it into the Analysis section. Bearing in mind that I haven't finished, what do you think? (One question btw, the sentence I've added a fact tag to, I wasn't sure if that was your commentary on the talk page or still D'Este) EyeSerene talk 10:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, hope you had a good Christmas holiday. I'm surprised to have to write to you re this, but anyway: when you removed the 'East Lancashire' from the 66th Division link page, you broke the link to the 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. Please try and avoid this in future. Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Greetings Earthling; in the Great War the effort to break into enemy defences was usually a slow costly business on a narrow part of the front, which was susceptible to enfilade from the flanks and which cut up the ground captured making a breakout so slow that the defenders could rebuild field defences faster than the attacker could advance. SA Hart's analysis of Monty's Colossal Cracks sums it rather well; narrow front attacks in depth allow the defender to concentrate resources in a small area which gets more and more congested and ploughed up and wide front attacks don't have the weight to overcome C20th weapons which deny areas to the attacker with firepower rather than manpower. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[10] Much appreciated :) EyeSerene talk 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
A very apposite quote. I've come to the opinion that while our friend is active we're not going to make much progress. I'm involved, so I've requested other eyes on the situation at the milhist coords page; I think we might have to resort to page protection + further blocks to get things back on track. There are still sections of the notes you've added to the talk page that I'd like to include (particularly re whether the attack was ever going to achieve its aims) and I'm working on that Caumont Gap map, so there's a little way to go. We'll get there though :) EyeSerene talk 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Way back at the end of November last year, you added a bunch of references citing Buckley, Reid and Hart in the M4 Sherman article, but didn't seem to add full citations for the books. Could you add them please? Hohum 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting find. Though I say so myself, I think we all did a damn good job on that article :) EyeSerene talk 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
while goodwood, a allied sherman rammed a king tiger and disables him. its not in the article now but funny, isnt it? maybe u can put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
[
[11]]
Blablaaa (
talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I know that User:Blablaaa can be uncivil, but I don't think that the tone of your recent comments on their talk page is helpful. Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning, though if you're concerned about the neutrality and speculation of the source you could attribute. Maybe something like "Marie records that after the Germans reoccupied V-B, some soldiers took reprisals against the civilian population in isolated incidents of looting and arson, including the burning a number of houses and shops, and the town hall. Forty notes that such lapses in discipline were severely punished." Your call :) EyeSerene talk 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw your note at Operation Normandy - is this the e-book version you're referring to? If not then, well... here's another copy for you! Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
MisterBee1966 (
talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy to. Should have some time this evening, so I'll start nitpicking then! Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The World War Barnstar | |
I know that Wiki is a community project and all that, but it's obviously you behind most of the Battle of Villers-Bocage article, and you blatently deserve this (and I'm sure EyeSerene will agree with me!). I don't think I've seen such a detailed description and well put together compilation of sources for a battle in some time. If it was a chapter of a book, I'd buy it. Ranger Steve ( talk) 12:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
I don't have that one, i can check a few places and contacts of mine to see if they might though... Cam ( Chat) 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we're about ready, with one outstanding issue - do you think the lead needs trimming? EyeSerene talk 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the book you mentioned Enigma? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to mention - I'm happy to have a crack at a tactical map if we can source it, though I'm not sure that we can realistically go into much more detail than the ambush map already there. We can give it a go though if you like. EyeSerene talk 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Pints all round, finally :) EyeSerene talk 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
here maybe some interesting stuff for u: [ [12]] Blablaaa ( talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to be the fly on the wall in #10 today. If you need stats please feel free to inquire @ my talk page.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando. Would you mind reviewing my changes and stating whether I've addressed them adequately or not? Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, While I'd normally be happy to look into this kind of dispute, since my indef block of Blablaaa was over-turned, he/she is likely to complain about unfair treatment if I intervene in this matter with an admin hat on. As such, I'd suggest you ask another admin (or admins) to look into this. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
My two penn'orth: first, apologies that I've only just seen this (I don't edit much over the weekend). Second, it looks like things have blown over now. However, I pretty much agree with Nick/Jim/Keith here and elsewhere, and would echo Nick's advice that if it's not a substantiated objection with reference to sources, I'd ignore it. It's really not worth getting into a slanging match. I'm not really able to act in an admin capacity on those articles, being WP:INVOLVED, but you can always post to ANI or (perhaps better for a more informed intervention) the milhist coords' talk page. Best, EyeSerene talk 11:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)