![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for the review! I think that must be the quickest GA review I've seen yet... Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of Ælfwald, many thanks. Hel-hama ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Jim, what are your concerns over this article? I'm seeing a lot of reverting going on and I'm concerned about criteria 5.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for reviewing this article. I think that I've now responded to all your comments and suggestions. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've addressed all your points and (I hope) cleared them all. There are two which I have not done anything about yet as I've got a suggestion or two for how to proceed and would appreciate your input before I undertake the edits. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 13:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I made the changes you proposed and left some questions for you as well. Please have a look once you have time. Thanks for reviewing MisterBee1966 ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks for creating all those articles. You've expanded our coverage in that area significantly. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, where did you get the old money conversion rates/totals for the 18th C. British soldier article? I was flicking through my copy of Holmes "Redcoat" earlier hoping to find and cite something in terms of modern value, but gave up. Are these conversions by a modern equivalent or for a certain date.. i.e. 2s 8d (14 pence) – 14p by what standard.. 2011 or 1800? As I think it might be worth noting something in the article if it accounts for any inflation, etc, though I expect not at these low totals, just to make readers more clear as to where the pence values come from, so not to appear as OR. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 14:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jim. Would it possible for you to close some Good Topic nominations to lower the backlog? GamerPro64 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Just like to say well done on the article and really appreciate all your hard work mate. Its looking great. — Woe90i Woe90i 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Airborne Warfare Barnstar | |
Awarded to Jim Sweeney, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their work on Airborne Warfare articles throughout 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
I see that you deleted a reference and link to a tribute page to one of the survivors of this operation. I wonder whether information of this sort might be used in a "Survivors" section, giving the names of the few who got away. There were eight survivors of the attack, as well as three others who had been away cutting communications lines at the time. What do you think? -- TraceyR ( talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Military history reviewers' award | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Jim; hope you're having a good start to the new year. I had a couple of thoughts which I wanted to run by you. When our British infantry division articles are short, without much material beyond a list of component units, I was wondering whether it's actually strictly necessary to create brigade articles if we have not much more than a list of units. Maybe we could consider not creating the brigade articles until there's actually something substantive to say about the brigade's history and operations itself ? Secondly, I noticed you were removing Category:Infantry brigades of the British Army from some brigades. My thought was that if the brigade has participated in the First World War and Korea, as the 29th did, the main category should not be removed; only if it *only* participated in the Second World War should the main cat be removed. Would appreciate your ideas on these two points; look forward to discussing. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
It is with the greatest admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)". Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey. Could you close a couple of the older GTCs this week? I'm swamped on my end and can't contribute much besides some AWB fixes. I'll do a run-through this weekend but would prefer that it's not a huge amount to do. Haven't seen you close much so you especially I'd like to see get more active there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jim. I think you might have rv'd a bit enthusiatically here... :) EyeSerene talk 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
After a few months of quiet, the IP-hopping ninja has returned to Special forces. Thrills! I'm working on a detailed Talk page response (to be completed, uh, sometime); not that it will mean anything to the anon, but may be helpful to any other editors who stop by. Ergative rlt ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, regarding "nothing in any press release about armament" and the CIWS, it isn't explicitly mentioned, but all the images show the ships with Phalanx. What's WPs policy in this situation? Are we allowed to use a photo/image as a source to include information, or does it actually have to be written word? Cheers, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Wilfried richter 3ss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Webster's Brewery has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Puffin Let's talk! 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier starboard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I agreed with your presumed intention in making this edit. You also (I imagine unintentionally) undid my edits to remove unsourced and badly-written content and to align date formats in the references and the main body of the article. If this was an error as I suspect, could I cordially ask you to be more careful the next time? On the understanding that you didn't intend this aspect of your edit I have restored the edits I made. I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. -- John ( talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:GustanKnittel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:25pzgra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:25pzgra.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I came across your user page when looking through a number of articles. I not that on your user page you list countries that you have visited. The first mentioned is the British Isles. As I am sure you are aware, the British Isles are not a country, rather two sovereign states and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann. Listing the actual countries would be appreciated, thank you Tribunicia ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Back in December last year you oversaw the GA process for the Ian Fleming article. Just to let you know that this has undergone further development since then and is now undergoing an FA review. - Thanks for all your help getting it up to GA last year—and fingers crossed for the FA! - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you may not be aware but a guild member is copyediting this article at the moment, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind saving your copyedits until the guild member has completed their work? Thanks a lot. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I would like your input at the Blue-water navy article. It appears that once again a list of limited blue-water navies has found its way back into the article. As per previous consensus it should be removed. Cheers. Talk Woe90i 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:103 Motorised Division Piacenza.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, nice to hear from you. Yes, I am all well. I am still struggling with the Knight's Cross and its recipients most of the time. Regarding Otto Liman von Sanders, I believe the correct variant would be "Liman von Sanders". I also checked the German Wiki and they also use Liman von Sanders. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
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) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Great work with this article Jim - I really enjoyed reading it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for writing a potted history of the brigade in addition to the list of units. Would you mind please doing one other thing when you create brigade articles? Please place them not just in Category:Military units and formations of the British Army in World War I or suchlike, but in the correct subcategory, in this case Category:Brigades of the British Army in the First World War, or better still, if there are over three brigades going to be in the category, create the sub sub cat, 'Mounted brigades of the British Army in World War X' etc. Otherwise somebody has to come along later and shift all the brigade articles to the brigade category, divs to the div category, etc. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I removed "Fincastle" as it was a duplicate of Viscount Fincastle. You might want to look at the sorting of the names. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British cavalry during the First World War, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on 22 August 1914, a British cavalryman in the Great War fired in anger during combat, the first time that had happened on mainland Europe since the Battle of Waterloo 99 years earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/British cavalry during the First World War. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Double checking this is meant to have a comma on the end of the title - your comment on the move about it being the correct title seemed very emphatic, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of this naming convention. Can you assist ? - TB ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I saw you created this earlier in the year - if you're thinking of expanding it at some point, you might be interested to know that the BL has just put up a digitised copy of the brigade history. Andrew Gray ( talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've been making edits to the aforementioned article for a while. The structure did need an overhaul, and there were number of citations which were needed. Given the number of changes which had taken place since the initial review, I made a request for a further review, as it seemed to comply with B Class.
On 19 November, I did set up a header in Talk:Corps_of_Colonial_Marines for suggested improvements, and this is barren. On 21 November, I see you added a Lead tag, suggesting this be discussed on the talk page, and the comment "tags added NOT ready fpr a GA review".
Please can you give some further guidance. From what I can see, an intro of about 4 paragraphs is needed on the general subject of former slaves recruited during two time periods and in two geographic regions. Up to now, the focus has been on the two sub articles themselves. I am keen to elicit responses from several persons, with regard to where the existing article could be improved. I have no experience in this area. Thanks, Keith H99 ( talk) 10:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I'm beginning the copy-edit of the above article that you requested at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my editis if I'm doing something I shouldn't Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Jim
Please refer to Appendix G on this page. 'Deadstick' was the codename for the training.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The page is a copy of WO 171/1234 1 Wing Glider Pilot Regiment.
'The Pegasus Diaries', John Howard & Penny Bates, p. 86: The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim, As you're the main editor of British Army during the Second World War your views on the A class nomination for Australian Army in World War II would be much appreciated if you have the time to give it a looking over. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please be accurate when editing NZ land force units. The New Zealand Military Forces was NZ's 'Army' throughout the Second World War, not becoming the NZ Army until after the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I am working on the various Mounted Brigades at the moment (e.g. 2nd South Western Mounted Brigade). I hope I am not stepping on your toes. Hamish59 ( talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your move of this article and opened a discussion, prior to adding a Disambiguation to this, as this is a potentially controversial move. Your comments are both welcome and desired. Please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for uploading
File:Adolf reeb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history service award | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC) |
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1894–95 World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunderland against Di Canio ( talk) 12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. There is currently a bit of a drive going on to improve this article and we would welcome help from experienced editors. If you are interested there is a list of outstanding tasks here [1] and a list of missing citations here [2]. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I recently made two changes to British cavalry during the First World War and you have reverted both in one hit. Firstly, is there any reason not to link to the articles on the RHA Brigades (my first change)?
Secondly, if I understand your reason for reverting, "CITED INFO CHANGED ?" I assume that Edmunds 1925, p.379 (Edmunds, J.E. (1925). History of the Great War: Military Operations, France and Belgium 1914. History of the Great War. Volume II.) states that the 3rd Cavalry Division was supported by XV Brigade RHA. Indeed it was, in 1914 (and early 1915).
At the outbreak of WWI, the British Army formed two XV Brigades, RHA: (1) formed 1 October 1914 for 3rd Cavalry Division, renamed IV Brigade in April 1915. Ref: Becke, Major A.F. (1935). Order of Battle of Divisions Part 1. The Regular British Divisions. p21 or Frederick, J.B.M. (1984). Lineage Book of British Land Forces 1660-1978. p447 (2) formed January 1915 for 29th Division. Ref: Becke (1935) p121 or Frederick (1984) p443
I have stated this in XV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery, but I have not yet written IV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery.
I propose reverting your revert, then citing IV Brigade with Becke. Please let me know what you think. Hamish59 ( talk) 11:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You created a redirect from Nuzzle to Gaza Strip. We think that almost certainly the reference is to the town Nazla. If you can confirm that, please correct the links. Regards. Zero talk 00:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia ( http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.
I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.
If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
15:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim, please forgive the unsolicited spam. I'm hoping to establish a regular Wikipedia meetup in Newcastle, the first of which is to be held on 15 September, and I hoped you might be interested. If you can make it, please do sign up on Meta, and if you can't make this one but would be interested in future Newcastle meetups, please add your name to the "apologies" section so we know there's interest. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You asked me why I eliminated categories from Robert Peverell Hichens.
Using GBR-cats instead of GBR, Global Categories are added based on the post-nominal index applied to the template. This happens even when you delete same category from the subject page.
Review the Post-nominal template and the review the line that starts with DSO. On the Robert Peverell Hichens page, the post-nominal DSO is replaced with [[Distinguished Service Order|DSO]] and attaches this category Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order to the page. You still need to leave categories specific to the subject however global categories can be managed off of the GBR-cats data schema.
I'll revert your undo but just check the bottom of the subject page and you'll see both Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order and Bar and Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom) present even though both categories are missing from the page source. It's the post-nominal template that adds the global categories for everyone who has a DSO and are using the GBR-cats schema. (GBR is still necessary for pages where you don't want to add global categories, these pages are usually listings and tables).
Karl Stephens ( talk| contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
23:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. Just wondering if the title of this article is right per policy. Specifically should it just be Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse) (without the "The")? Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see the List of conflicts in North Africa regarding adding the Anglo Egyptian Darfur Expedition. Thanks. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. Have you considered putting your name forward for this? I certainly think you have a lot of experience in the project and would be more than capable of doing the job. We currently only have 10 nominations and they close today so if you are interested pls have a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, I didn't check the existing material enough. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ziza ( 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) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm attempting to find a solution to what has apparently been a long term editorial disagreement between you and rskp, and at the moment I am interested in hearing whether or not you would be willing to work with me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moving_forward? to attempt to find some middle ground upon which the two of you can bury the hatchet such as it were and move past the disputes. I realize that this in neither your fault entirely nor is it rskp's fault entirely, and I am asking for the sake of peace among yourselves and for the sake of the other editors and the articles in question would you be willing to work with me to find a solution that the two of you can work with? I've not seen you post in a few days, so I expect that you'll have something to say about what has happened and why you have done what you've done, and I also expect you'll have an opinion on whether you want to work with me or leave the whole bloody thing to someone else and be done with it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I can add a bit about his service in the Khyber Pass. His major achievement was as commander of 6 Brigade 2 Division at the end of the Third Afghan war - the destruction of Yar Muhammed's fort at Chora. What was unusual was that the war was officially over by this time (September 1919) but it seems the British were determined to deal with someone they considered more of a bandit than a formal adversary. Beatty led a force from his brigade and with RAF support destroyed the fort in a 2 day operation over 17/18 September. It is mentioned in the Official History where the action is justified "Yar Mohammed still remained to be dealt with, and although the operations against his fort at Chora took place after peace was signed they can be fittingly included in this book, as they were undertaken as a punishment for his acts of hostility during the campaign" Official History p79. The action is also covered in Brian Robson's Crisis on the Frontier pp89-91. NtheP ( talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
- RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
- RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
- For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{ POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
- Jim Sweeney ( talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, too. Hope yours is going well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
While I'm here... thank you for your persistence (and that of other milhist folks) in bringing arbcom howitzers to bear on the behavioural issues affecting some World War I topics. I see the issues are ongoing to some extent, with the first WP:AE filing now looking likely to be closed with no further action other than a reminder. Don't be too eager to engage with the other party's edits in an attempt to "win" this. I know from my own experience of similar situations, that it's best to just sit back and wait, because once an editor starts down that path, as Isoroku Yamamoto warned his superiors right from the start... it's only a matter of time. In other words, it will get dealt with eventually; probably without you needing to do anything at all. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim! I've completed the copyedit of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment (a large part already done by AustralianRupert).
One outstanding item that I'm not sure how to resolve. In the section "First combat", your original version refers to "... in the attack on Anzac". I've changed this to "... in the attack on the Anzacs", which is the usage I'm more familiar with. That might perhaps be too colloquial though? Either way, because of the history of the regiment being part of a division initially, rather than the ANZAC corps, this is actually the very first mention of Anzac(s) in the whole article. Thus it lacks some context for any reader unfamiliar with what an Anzac is or what ANZAC was. Can this be expanded somewhere to make it clearer?
On a related note, beside this section there's also an image caption that mentions ANZAC - perhaps this can usefully be wikilinked?
It's good to be working with you again after such a long break. I'm hoping to start a copyedit of the Wellington regiment over the next day or two. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The article
Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Anotherclown --
Anotherclown (
talk)
04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
By order of the
Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's
Peer,
Good Article,
A-Class and
Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you this
Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. During this period you undertook two reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2013 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks, Jim. Dloh cierekim 21:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, just to let you know I've finished the copyedit of Battle for No.3 Post. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
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)
13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article
Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The article
Battle for No.3 Post you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Battle for No.3 Post for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Dana boomer --
Dana boomer (
talk)
19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third attack on Anzac Cove, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Private and Over the top ( 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) 09:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle for No.3 Post, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade suffered 42 dead in the Battle for No.3 Post, but had to abandon it as untenable less than two days after capturing it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle for No.3 Post. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The World War Barnstar | |
For some excellent recent contributions in this area including: Battle for No.3 Post, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Auckland Mounted Rifles, Canterbury Mounted Rifles, Wellington Mounted Rifles, ANZAC Mounted Division, Third attack on Anzac Cove and many, many others. Some impressive work. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | On 28 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment suffered 127 men killed during 7 months at Gallipoli, and then exactly the same number in 2 years fighting in Sinai and Palestine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Third attack on Anzac Cove you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk)
09:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the
signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer
Godot13 (
submissions), whose set of
14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The article
Third attack on Anzac Cove you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Third attack on Anzac Cove for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk)
03:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, just to let you know the copyedit of Third attack on Anzac Cove is now complete.
If it makes it to GA status, I think a DYK hook will probably need to mention "the Man with the Donkey". The other option would be to mention the chance discovery of the Turkish preparations by a passing aircraft, but that's probably not quite so interesting.
I see you have another one in preparation! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 4 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Third attack on Anzac Cove, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third attack on Anzac Cove. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for the review! I think that must be the quickest GA review I've seen yet... Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of Ælfwald, many thanks. Hel-hama ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Jim, what are your concerns over this article? I'm seeing a lot of reverting going on and I'm concerned about criteria 5.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for reviewing this article. I think that I've now responded to all your comments and suggestions. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've addressed all your points and (I hope) cleared them all. There are two which I have not done anything about yet as I've got a suggestion or two for how to proceed and would appreciate your input before I undertake the edits. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 13:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I made the changes you proposed and left some questions for you as well. Please have a look once you have time. Thanks for reviewing MisterBee1966 ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks for creating all those articles. You've expanded our coverage in that area significantly. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, where did you get the old money conversion rates/totals for the 18th C. British soldier article? I was flicking through my copy of Holmes "Redcoat" earlier hoping to find and cite something in terms of modern value, but gave up. Are these conversions by a modern equivalent or for a certain date.. i.e. 2s 8d (14 pence) – 14p by what standard.. 2011 or 1800? As I think it might be worth noting something in the article if it accounts for any inflation, etc, though I expect not at these low totals, just to make readers more clear as to where the pence values come from, so not to appear as OR. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 14:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jim. Would it possible for you to close some Good Topic nominations to lower the backlog? GamerPro64 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Just like to say well done on the article and really appreciate all your hard work mate. Its looking great. — Woe90i Woe90i 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Airborne Warfare Barnstar | |
Awarded to Jim Sweeney, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their work on Airborne Warfare articles throughout 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
I see that you deleted a reference and link to a tribute page to one of the survivors of this operation. I wonder whether information of this sort might be used in a "Survivors" section, giving the names of the few who got away. There were eight survivors of the attack, as well as three others who had been away cutting communications lines at the time. What do you think? -- TraceyR ( talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Military history reviewers' award | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Jim; hope you're having a good start to the new year. I had a couple of thoughts which I wanted to run by you. When our British infantry division articles are short, without much material beyond a list of component units, I was wondering whether it's actually strictly necessary to create brigade articles if we have not much more than a list of units. Maybe we could consider not creating the brigade articles until there's actually something substantive to say about the brigade's history and operations itself ? Secondly, I noticed you were removing Category:Infantry brigades of the British Army from some brigades. My thought was that if the brigade has participated in the First World War and Korea, as the 29th did, the main category should not be removed; only if it *only* participated in the Second World War should the main cat be removed. Would appreciate your ideas on these two points; look forward to discussing. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | |
It is with the greatest admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)". Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey. Could you close a couple of the older GTCs this week? I'm swamped on my end and can't contribute much besides some AWB fixes. I'll do a run-through this weekend but would prefer that it's not a huge amount to do. Haven't seen you close much so you especially I'd like to see get more active there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jim. I think you might have rv'd a bit enthusiatically here... :) EyeSerene talk 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
After a few months of quiet, the IP-hopping ninja has returned to Special forces. Thrills! I'm working on a detailed Talk page response (to be completed, uh, sometime); not that it will mean anything to the anon, but may be helpful to any other editors who stop by. Ergative rlt ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, regarding "nothing in any press release about armament" and the CIWS, it isn't explicitly mentioned, but all the images show the ships with Phalanx. What's WPs policy in this situation? Are we allowed to use a photo/image as a source to include information, or does it actually have to be written word? Cheers, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Wilfried richter 3ss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Webster's Brewery has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Puffin Let's talk! 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier starboard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I agreed with your presumed intention in making this edit. You also (I imagine unintentionally) undid my edits to remove unsourced and badly-written content and to align date formats in the references and the main body of the article. If this was an error as I suspect, could I cordially ask you to be more careful the next time? On the understanding that you didn't intend this aspect of your edit I have restored the edits I made. I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. -- John ( talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:GustanKnittel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:25pzgra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:25pzgra.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I came across your user page when looking through a number of articles. I not that on your user page you list countries that you have visited. The first mentioned is the British Isles. As I am sure you are aware, the British Isles are not a country, rather two sovereign states and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann. Listing the actual countries would be appreciated, thank you Tribunicia ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Back in December last year you oversaw the GA process for the Ian Fleming article. Just to let you know that this has undergone further development since then and is now undergoing an FA review. - Thanks for all your help getting it up to GA last year—and fingers crossed for the FA! - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you may not be aware but a guild member is copyediting this article at the moment, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind saving your copyedits until the guild member has completed their work? Thanks a lot. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I would like your input at the Blue-water navy article. It appears that once again a list of limited blue-water navies has found its way back into the article. As per previous consensus it should be removed. Cheers. Talk Woe90i 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:103 Motorised Division Piacenza.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, nice to hear from you. Yes, I am all well. I am still struggling with the Knight's Cross and its recipients most of the time. Regarding Otto Liman von Sanders, I believe the correct variant would be "Liman von Sanders". I also checked the German Wiki and they also use Liman von Sanders. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
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) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Great work with this article Jim - I really enjoyed reading it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for writing a potted history of the brigade in addition to the list of units. Would you mind please doing one other thing when you create brigade articles? Please place them not just in Category:Military units and formations of the British Army in World War I or suchlike, but in the correct subcategory, in this case Category:Brigades of the British Army in the First World War, or better still, if there are over three brigades going to be in the category, create the sub sub cat, 'Mounted brigades of the British Army in World War X' etc. Otherwise somebody has to come along later and shift all the brigade articles to the brigade category, divs to the div category, etc. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I removed "Fincastle" as it was a duplicate of Viscount Fincastle. You might want to look at the sorting of the names. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British cavalry during the First World War, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on 22 August 1914, a British cavalryman in the Great War fired in anger during combat, the first time that had happened on mainland Europe since the Battle of Waterloo 99 years earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/British cavalry during the First World War. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Double checking this is meant to have a comma on the end of the title - your comment on the move about it being the correct title seemed very emphatic, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of this naming convention. Can you assist ? - TB ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I saw you created this earlier in the year - if you're thinking of expanding it at some point, you might be interested to know that the BL has just put up a digitised copy of the brigade history. Andrew Gray ( talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've been making edits to the aforementioned article for a while. The structure did need an overhaul, and there were number of citations which were needed. Given the number of changes which had taken place since the initial review, I made a request for a further review, as it seemed to comply with B Class.
On 19 November, I did set up a header in Talk:Corps_of_Colonial_Marines for suggested improvements, and this is barren. On 21 November, I see you added a Lead tag, suggesting this be discussed on the talk page, and the comment "tags added NOT ready fpr a GA review".
Please can you give some further guidance. From what I can see, an intro of about 4 paragraphs is needed on the general subject of former slaves recruited during two time periods and in two geographic regions. Up to now, the focus has been on the two sub articles themselves. I am keen to elicit responses from several persons, with regard to where the existing article could be improved. I have no experience in this area. Thanks, Keith H99 ( talk) 10:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I'm beginning the copy-edit of the above article that you requested at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my editis if I'm doing something I shouldn't Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Jim
Please refer to Appendix G on this page. 'Deadstick' was the codename for the training.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The page is a copy of WO 171/1234 1 Wing Glider Pilot Regiment.
'The Pegasus Diaries', John Howard & Penny Bates, p. 86: The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim, As you're the main editor of British Army during the Second World War your views on the A class nomination for Australian Army in World War II would be much appreciated if you have the time to give it a looking over. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please be accurate when editing NZ land force units. The New Zealand Military Forces was NZ's 'Army' throughout the Second World War, not becoming the NZ Army until after the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I am working on the various Mounted Brigades at the moment (e.g. 2nd South Western Mounted Brigade). I hope I am not stepping on your toes. Hamish59 ( talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your move of this article and opened a discussion, prior to adding a Disambiguation to this, as this is a potentially controversial move. Your comments are both welcome and desired. Please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for uploading
File:Adolf reeb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history service award | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC) |
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1894–95 World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunderland against Di Canio ( talk) 12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. There is currently a bit of a drive going on to improve this article and we would welcome help from experienced editors. If you are interested there is a list of outstanding tasks here [1] and a list of missing citations here [2]. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I recently made two changes to British cavalry during the First World War and you have reverted both in one hit. Firstly, is there any reason not to link to the articles on the RHA Brigades (my first change)?
Secondly, if I understand your reason for reverting, "CITED INFO CHANGED ?" I assume that Edmunds 1925, p.379 (Edmunds, J.E. (1925). History of the Great War: Military Operations, France and Belgium 1914. History of the Great War. Volume II.) states that the 3rd Cavalry Division was supported by XV Brigade RHA. Indeed it was, in 1914 (and early 1915).
At the outbreak of WWI, the British Army formed two XV Brigades, RHA: (1) formed 1 October 1914 for 3rd Cavalry Division, renamed IV Brigade in April 1915. Ref: Becke, Major A.F. (1935). Order of Battle of Divisions Part 1. The Regular British Divisions. p21 or Frederick, J.B.M. (1984). Lineage Book of British Land Forces 1660-1978. p447 (2) formed January 1915 for 29th Division. Ref: Becke (1935) p121 or Frederick (1984) p443
I have stated this in XV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery, but I have not yet written IV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery.
I propose reverting your revert, then citing IV Brigade with Becke. Please let me know what you think. Hamish59 ( talk) 11:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You created a redirect from Nuzzle to Gaza Strip. We think that almost certainly the reference is to the town Nazla. If you can confirm that, please correct the links. Regards. Zero talk 00:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia ( http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.
I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.
If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
15:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim, please forgive the unsolicited spam. I'm hoping to establish a regular Wikipedia meetup in Newcastle, the first of which is to be held on 15 September, and I hoped you might be interested. If you can make it, please do sign up on Meta, and if you can't make this one but would be interested in future Newcastle meetups, please add your name to the "apologies" section so we know there's interest. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You asked me why I eliminated categories from Robert Peverell Hichens.
Using GBR-cats instead of GBR, Global Categories are added based on the post-nominal index applied to the template. This happens even when you delete same category from the subject page.
Review the Post-nominal template and the review the line that starts with DSO. On the Robert Peverell Hichens page, the post-nominal DSO is replaced with [[Distinguished Service Order|DSO]] and attaches this category Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order to the page. You still need to leave categories specific to the subject however global categories can be managed off of the GBR-cats data schema.
I'll revert your undo but just check the bottom of the subject page and you'll see both Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order and Bar and Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom) present even though both categories are missing from the page source. It's the post-nominal template that adds the global categories for everyone who has a DSO and are using the GBR-cats schema. (GBR is still necessary for pages where you don't want to add global categories, these pages are usually listings and tables).
Karl Stephens ( talk| contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
23:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. Just wondering if the title of this article is right per policy. Specifically should it just be Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse) (without the "The")? Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see the List of conflicts in North Africa regarding adding the Anglo Egyptian Darfur Expedition. Thanks. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Gday Jim. Have you considered putting your name forward for this? I certainly think you have a lot of experience in the project and would be more than capable of doing the job. We currently only have 10 nominations and they close today so if you are interested pls have a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, I didn't check the existing material enough. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ziza ( 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) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm attempting to find a solution to what has apparently been a long term editorial disagreement between you and rskp, and at the moment I am interested in hearing whether or not you would be willing to work with me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moving_forward? to attempt to find some middle ground upon which the two of you can bury the hatchet such as it were and move past the disputes. I realize that this in neither your fault entirely nor is it rskp's fault entirely, and I am asking for the sake of peace among yourselves and for the sake of the other editors and the articles in question would you be willing to work with me to find a solution that the two of you can work with? I've not seen you post in a few days, so I expect that you'll have something to say about what has happened and why you have done what you've done, and I also expect you'll have an opinion on whether you want to work with me or leave the whole bloody thing to someone else and be done with it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Jim, I can add a bit about his service in the Khyber Pass. His major achievement was as commander of 6 Brigade 2 Division at the end of the Third Afghan war - the destruction of Yar Muhammed's fort at Chora. What was unusual was that the war was officially over by this time (September 1919) but it seems the British were determined to deal with someone they considered more of a bandit than a formal adversary. Beatty led a force from his brigade and with RAF support destroyed the fort in a 2 day operation over 17/18 September. It is mentioned in the Official History where the action is justified "Yar Mohammed still remained to be dealt with, and although the operations against his fort at Chora took place after peace was signed they can be fittingly included in this book, as they were undertaken as a punishment for his acts of hostility during the campaign" Official History p79. The action is also covered in Brian Robson's Crisis on the Frontier pp89-91. NtheP ( talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
- RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
- RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
- For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{ POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
- Jim Sweeney ( talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, too. Hope yours is going well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
While I'm here... thank you for your persistence (and that of other milhist folks) in bringing arbcom howitzers to bear on the behavioural issues affecting some World War I topics. I see the issues are ongoing to some extent, with the first WP:AE filing now looking likely to be closed with no further action other than a reminder. Don't be too eager to engage with the other party's edits in an attempt to "win" this. I know from my own experience of similar situations, that it's best to just sit back and wait, because once an editor starts down that path, as Isoroku Yamamoto warned his superiors right from the start... it's only a matter of time. In other words, it will get dealt with eventually; probably without you needing to do anything at all. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim! I've completed the copyedit of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment (a large part already done by AustralianRupert).
One outstanding item that I'm not sure how to resolve. In the section "First combat", your original version refers to "... in the attack on Anzac". I've changed this to "... in the attack on the Anzacs", which is the usage I'm more familiar with. That might perhaps be too colloquial though? Either way, because of the history of the regiment being part of a division initially, rather than the ANZAC corps, this is actually the very first mention of Anzac(s) in the whole article. Thus it lacks some context for any reader unfamiliar with what an Anzac is or what ANZAC was. Can this be expanded somewhere to make it clearer?
On a related note, beside this section there's also an image caption that mentions ANZAC - perhaps this can usefully be wikilinked?
It's good to be working with you again after such a long break. I'm hoping to start a copyedit of the Wellington regiment over the next day or two. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The article
Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Anotherclown --
Anotherclown (
talk)
04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
By order of the
Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's
Peer,
Good Article,
A-Class and
Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you this
Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. During this period you undertook two reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2013 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks, Jim. Dloh cierekim 21:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, just to let you know I've finished the copyedit of Battle for No.3 Post. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
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)
13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article
Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The article
Battle for No.3 Post you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Battle for No.3 Post for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Dana boomer --
Dana boomer (
talk)
19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third attack on Anzac Cove, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Private and Over the top ( 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) 09:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sturmvogel 66 --
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle for No.3 Post, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade suffered 42 dead in the Battle for No.3 Post, but had to abandon it as untenable less than two days after capturing it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle for No.3 Post. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The World War Barnstar | |
For some excellent recent contributions in this area including: Battle for No.3 Post, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Auckland Mounted Rifles, Canterbury Mounted Rifles, Wellington Mounted Rifles, ANZAC Mounted Division, Third attack on Anzac Cove and many, many others. Some impressive work. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | On 28 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment suffered 127 men killed during 7 months at Gallipoli, and then exactly the same number in 2 years fighting in Sinai and Palestine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Third attack on Anzac Cove you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk)
09:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the
signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer
Godot13 (
submissions), whose set of
14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The article
Third attack on Anzac Cove you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Third attack on Anzac Cove for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk)
03:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, just to let you know the copyedit of Third attack on Anzac Cove is now complete.
If it makes it to GA status, I think a DYK hook will probably need to mention "the Man with the Donkey". The other option would be to mention the chance discovery of the Turkish preparations by a passing aircraft, but that's probably not quite so interesting.
I see you have another one in preparation! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 4 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Third attack on Anzac Cove, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third attack on Anzac Cove. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |