Archives |
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove your comment here? The discussion is ongoing, and the dispute is unresolved as of now. Tim meh ! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ignore what I said about verifiability on that source. I think I just looked at it very quickly and noticed it required a paid subscription but not that it was a newspaper, or something. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It was described as a falconet on the website.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. It fits the description: a small-bore cannon resembling an oversized musket on a two-wheeled carriage. Whether it's muzzle-loading or breech-loading is irrelevant.
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies talk 13:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks :) I'm aware it won't pass, but I'm happy to have pretty much 2:1 support. I'll get as much feedback as possible and let it pan out whichever way it goes, I suppose :) Thanks again for the barnstar. — Cyclonenim | Chat 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Patton. Congrats on FA for SAW! We have a long running discussion on what should be the lead image, with editors regularly swinging by to swap in a tank of their preferred nationality. When I saw the image had changed again I nearly popped a blood vessel :) Please join the discussion if you would like to contribute to a consensus on a more 'typical' tank image. Thanks Dhatfield ( talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not deleting the article. The article in its prior state definitely deserved deletion, but before recreating the article I have ensured that the sources were reliable and looked at the issues raised in the AfD. The article obviously has room for expansion, and although I won't be taking part in the article, I'll still be watching it for vandalism and unreliable sources. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
FYI, the Macedonia issue on which you commented yesterday is now at arbitration - see WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute. -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think that I've now addressed your comments on this article's A-class review. Do you think that any further changes are needed for the article to reach A-class? thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle email me 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Archives |
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove your comment here? The discussion is ongoing, and the dispute is unresolved as of now. Tim meh ! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ignore what I said about verifiability on that source. I think I just looked at it very quickly and noticed it required a paid subscription but not that it was a newspaper, or something. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It was described as a falconet on the website.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. It fits the description: a small-bore cannon resembling an oversized musket on a two-wheeled carriage. Whether it's muzzle-loading or breech-loading is irrelevant.
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies talk 13:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks :) I'm aware it won't pass, but I'm happy to have pretty much 2:1 support. I'll get as much feedback as possible and let it pan out whichever way it goes, I suppose :) Thanks again for the barnstar. — Cyclonenim | Chat 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Patton. Congrats on FA for SAW! We have a long running discussion on what should be the lead image, with editors regularly swinging by to swap in a tank of their preferred nationality. When I saw the image had changed again I nearly popped a blood vessel :) Please join the discussion if you would like to contribute to a consensus on a more 'typical' tank image. Thanks Dhatfield ( talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not deleting the article. The article in its prior state definitely deserved deletion, but before recreating the article I have ensured that the sources were reliable and looked at the issues raised in the AfD. The article obviously has room for expansion, and although I won't be taking part in the article, I'll still be watching it for vandalism and unreliable sources. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
FYI, the Macedonia issue on which you commented yesterday is now at arbitration - see WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute. -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think that I've now addressed your comments on this article's A-class review. Do you think that any further changes are needed for the article to reach A-class? thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle email me 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)