![]() | This page 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. |
The
March 2008 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) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've commented (I hope constructively - its not intended as discouragement). I think the article is currently "Start / Low". I've given some suggestions to get it up to Start / Mid. I think it could make "B / High", but you have not made use of information that is already out there (on wikipedia) and in printed form. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stewart, I was going around tagging articles, when I came across this orphaned article. I'm not really convinced that it is needed as a standalone article, but its not really covered in the Argyle Line - possible paste into the Argyle Line article and delete? Any thoughts? Pyrotec ( talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrotec - I've split out a Ravenscraig steelworks article from the Ravenscraig article. I think it deserves a page all it to itself. I hope this meets with your approval! - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe Category:WikiProject Transport is specifically for that project and its subprojects, whereas Category:Transportation WikiProjects can be used more broadly for wikiprojects related to transportation which (for whatever reason) don't consider themselves to be subprojects of WikiProject Transport. But I grant you that the WikiProject categorization system is a mess, and I'm unsure how it should be fixed. Stepheng3 ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy ( MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 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) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have called the recent anon IP edit to Women's roles in the World Wars "vandalism"... maybe the drive-by about-face rewrite by a first time editor should have been noted as well-intentioned revisionism or at least good faith. WP:FAITH. Binksternet ( talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have taken your advice and kept away from 'the prehistory of gunpowder'. I'm really not ready for a 'discussion' like this (where flaming others to frustration is the norm, this is like a really disturbing discussion board) and yet I can't allow someone to just omit Encyclopedia Britannica just like that.
I have the 'Oxford History of Modern War' and the 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' ready for Europe. I doubt I'll be contributing much on this article given Meatwaggon's bullying. Can I mail you the quotes? I have a few copied/pasted and ready.
Vtria 08 ( talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD; this was a mixture of finely ground potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre), charcoal, and sulfur in approximate proportions of 75:15:10 by weight. The resultant gray powder behaved differently from anything previously known; it exploded on contact with open flame or a red-hot wire, producing a bright flash, a loud report, dense white smoke, and a sulfurous smell. It also produced considerable quantities of superheated gas, which, if confined in a partially enclosed container, could drive a projectile out of the open end. The Chinese used the substance in rockets, in pyrotechnic projectors much like Roman candles, in crude cannon, and, according to some sources, in bombs thrown by mechanical artillery. This transpired long before gunpowder was known in the West, but development in China stagnated. The development of black powder as a tactically significant weapon was left to the Europeans, who probably acquired it from the Mongols in the 13th century (though diffusion through the Arab Muslim world is also a possibility).
According to the book:
Jeremy Black is Professor of History at the University of Exeter. His books include Why Wars Happen (1998); War and the World 1450–2000 (1998); Warfare in the Eighteenth Century (1999); and Britain as a Military Power 1688–1815 (1999). War—Past, Present and Future will appear later this year.
Vtria 08 ( talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, he's a sockpuppet. JFD ( talk) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I notice that you have reverted my edit in the Transport in Glasgow article. In your edit comment, you say the {{ future uk public transportation}} template was re-added as per MoS. I am curious, what part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style do you refer to? -- Kildor ( talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment you made to the article. You mentioned that you felt it required further copyediting. Could you tell me which areas of the article need this treatment, or possibly give a few examples? Thanks. Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just realised that you've made some improvements already. It's all good stuff, but if you have any other reccomendations, I'm eager to hear them. Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Sorry, I did not know that. It was abruptive to me, and looked very much like vandalism. I obviously need to read up about guano :-) Johan Dahlin ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 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) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stewart, Sparkford, is near Yeovil in Somerset. Perhaps in Scotland, it is regarded as being near to Wellingborough, but it is certainly not in Northamptonshire. Can I suggest that you look at Jowett - its the ISBN page before the Title page. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this entry on World Cat is part of the reason for my confusion, also the edition of the Atlas I have is a Guild Publishing edition. -- Stewart (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have also noted that PSL seems to have been based in the Wellingborough area at some point, however are now in Somerset - probably when taken over by Haynes. There might even be a Wikipedia article in the history of PSL. -- Stewart (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Woops, sorry I did not spot that you had already made a template for Johnson & Hume. I was going to call the book template "Glasgow Stations" but that template name was already in use for a route map that you had made; hence the modified name. Thanks for sorting it out. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I will stand corrected, however I was under the impression that this station was located east of the current Dumbreck railway station, the other side of the M77. The reason for this was when I regularly used the line in the early 1980s, a regular stop would be at the signal just before going under Gower Street. The signal was on a section of platform ramp. The remains of the overbridge station building are still visible on multimap. -- Stewart (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Pyrotec, The folllowing is a copy of correspondence between the Science Museum (London) and myself (Copy and paste):
Dear Mr. Horn, Thank-you for your enquiry, as you can see it has taken a rather circuitous route to find an answer.
As you may be aware ‘Puffing Billy’ was built several years before 1825, the date popularly considered to be when the railways began and well before the birth of ‘Rocket’. The story of ‘Puffing Billy’ really begins in the mid 18th Century when the owners of Wylam Colliery laid a five-mile long waggonway from their colliery to the riverside staithes of the Tyne . The waggonway was level throughout its length, constructed of timber rails 3 ½ inches wide and 4 ½ inches deep attached to stone sleepers at 18 inch intervals but more importantly the gauge was 5 feet throughout.
In 1800 the Wylam estates passed to Christopher Blackett, who ordered the colliery’s first locomotive, however it was not used on the waggonway because it was felt that it was too heavy for the wooden rails and so remained as a stationary engine. In 1808 the wooden waggonway was improved by the laying of L-shaped plate rails.
William Hedley had been appointed ‘Viewer’ of Wylam Colliery in 1805, Hedley had kept a close eye on the development of locomotives and with the blessing of Blackett he built a test vehicle to carry out experiments. At some point around 1812/3 he added a boiler to his test vehicle. A new vehicle was created the following year, by which time a young Timothy Hackworth was assisting Hedley, and a further one in 1815.
All of Hedley’s locomotives were built to be used on a specific waggonway, that of the Wylam Colliery. Therefore they all conformed to the 5 foot gauge.
Stephenson worked not far away at the Killingworth Colliery, he persuaded his employers that he could build them a locomotive, naturally this was built to the gauge of the Killingworth waggonway, Stephenson then moved on to construct the Hetton Colliery railway, which in turn led to his involvement in the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
As can be seen there was in fact no standard gauge for these waggonways, and in many cases it was not envisaged that they would link together to form a ‘railway’ network. The gauges ranged from 4’ (Tanfield) up to 5’ (Wylam), Killingworth was 4’8” as was the Hetton Line built by Stephenson. It was Stephenson’s influence that created the 4’8” Stockton and Darlington Railway and because he was chosen, over John Rennie, to be the engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that too conformed to the 4’8” gauge. (Rennie had wanted 5’6”).
It would appear that the 4’8” gauge was adopted simply because the most popular consultant was most familiar with it. Incidentally I have not managed to find out when the extra 1/2“ was added.
Sources:
Lee, C.E., 1943, The Evolution of the Railways, (Railway Gazette: London )
Brookes, P.R.B., 1975, Wylam and its Railway Pioneers, (Wylam Parish Council)
Duty Curator
Search Engine
National Railway Museum
Leeman Road
York
YO26 4XJ
Search.engine@nrm.org.uk
From: Freedom of Information (SCM) Sent: 24 June 2008 11:26 To: Search Engine Subject: FW: Website comment form
Dear Search Engine
Please could I ask you to respond to this enquiry and let me have a copy of your response.
Thank you
Sarah
Sarah Norville Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer NMSI
The members of the NMSI family include: Science Museum , National Media Museum , National Railway Museum , Locomotion
National Railway Museum Leeman Road York YO26 4XJ t. 01904 686242 e. sarah.norville@nrm.org.uk
From: Nowak Michalina Sent: 24 June 2008 11:22 To: Freedom of Information (SCM) Subject: FW: Website comment form
Michalina Nowak Commercial Operations Coordinator
020 7942 4422
From: donotreply@nmsi.ac.uk [1] Sent: 24 June 2008 00:56 To: Feedback (SCM) Subject: Website comment form
Website comment form
Comments:
What was the track gauge for: 1) Puffing Billy 2) The Rocket It appeared to be more than 1435 mm.
Require reply:
Yes
Name:
Peter Horn
Nationality:
Canadian
Address:
909 rue Wilfrid-Laurier Laval QC
County:
Canada
Postcode:
H7V 3E9
Email Address:
phorn12000@yahoo.ca
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned on behalf of NMSI for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
End of Copy and paste
Peter Horn 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the above??? Peter Horn 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
.
The
June 2008 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) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
The
March 2008 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) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've commented (I hope constructively - its not intended as discouragement). I think the article is currently "Start / Low". I've given some suggestions to get it up to Start / Mid. I think it could make "B / High", but you have not made use of information that is already out there (on wikipedia) and in printed form. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stewart, I was going around tagging articles, when I came across this orphaned article. I'm not really convinced that it is needed as a standalone article, but its not really covered in the Argyle Line - possible paste into the Argyle Line article and delete? Any thoughts? Pyrotec ( talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrotec - I've split out a Ravenscraig steelworks article from the Ravenscraig article. I think it deserves a page all it to itself. I hope this meets with your approval! - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe Category:WikiProject Transport is specifically for that project and its subprojects, whereas Category:Transportation WikiProjects can be used more broadly for wikiprojects related to transportation which (for whatever reason) don't consider themselves to be subprojects of WikiProject Transport. But I grant you that the WikiProject categorization system is a mess, and I'm unsure how it should be fixed. Stepheng3 ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy ( MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 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) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have called the recent anon IP edit to Women's roles in the World Wars "vandalism"... maybe the drive-by about-face rewrite by a first time editor should have been noted as well-intentioned revisionism or at least good faith. WP:FAITH. Binksternet ( talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have taken your advice and kept away from 'the prehistory of gunpowder'. I'm really not ready for a 'discussion' like this (where flaming others to frustration is the norm, this is like a really disturbing discussion board) and yet I can't allow someone to just omit Encyclopedia Britannica just like that.
I have the 'Oxford History of Modern War' and the 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' ready for Europe. I doubt I'll be contributing much on this article given Meatwaggon's bullying. Can I mail you the quotes? I have a few copied/pasted and ready.
Vtria 08 ( talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD; this was a mixture of finely ground potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre), charcoal, and sulfur in approximate proportions of 75:15:10 by weight. The resultant gray powder behaved differently from anything previously known; it exploded on contact with open flame or a red-hot wire, producing a bright flash, a loud report, dense white smoke, and a sulfurous smell. It also produced considerable quantities of superheated gas, which, if confined in a partially enclosed container, could drive a projectile out of the open end. The Chinese used the substance in rockets, in pyrotechnic projectors much like Roman candles, in crude cannon, and, according to some sources, in bombs thrown by mechanical artillery. This transpired long before gunpowder was known in the West, but development in China stagnated. The development of black powder as a tactically significant weapon was left to the Europeans, who probably acquired it from the Mongols in the 13th century (though diffusion through the Arab Muslim world is also a possibility).
According to the book:
Jeremy Black is Professor of History at the University of Exeter. His books include Why Wars Happen (1998); War and the World 1450–2000 (1998); Warfare in the Eighteenth Century (1999); and Britain as a Military Power 1688–1815 (1999). War—Past, Present and Future will appear later this year.
Vtria 08 ( talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, he's a sockpuppet. JFD ( talk) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I notice that you have reverted my edit in the Transport in Glasgow article. In your edit comment, you say the {{ future uk public transportation}} template was re-added as per MoS. I am curious, what part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style do you refer to? -- Kildor ( talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment you made to the article. You mentioned that you felt it required further copyediting. Could you tell me which areas of the article need this treatment, or possibly give a few examples? Thanks. Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just realised that you've made some improvements already. It's all good stuff, but if you have any other reccomendations, I'm eager to hear them. Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Sorry, I did not know that. It was abruptive to me, and looked very much like vandalism. I obviously need to read up about guano :-) Johan Dahlin ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 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) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stewart, Sparkford, is near Yeovil in Somerset. Perhaps in Scotland, it is regarded as being near to Wellingborough, but it is certainly not in Northamptonshire. Can I suggest that you look at Jowett - its the ISBN page before the Title page. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this entry on World Cat is part of the reason for my confusion, also the edition of the Atlas I have is a Guild Publishing edition. -- Stewart (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have also noted that PSL seems to have been based in the Wellingborough area at some point, however are now in Somerset - probably when taken over by Haynes. There might even be a Wikipedia article in the history of PSL. -- Stewart (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Woops, sorry I did not spot that you had already made a template for Johnson & Hume. I was going to call the book template "Glasgow Stations" but that template name was already in use for a route map that you had made; hence the modified name. Thanks for sorting it out. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I will stand corrected, however I was under the impression that this station was located east of the current Dumbreck railway station, the other side of the M77. The reason for this was when I regularly used the line in the early 1980s, a regular stop would be at the signal just before going under Gower Street. The signal was on a section of platform ramp. The remains of the overbridge station building are still visible on multimap. -- Stewart (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Pyrotec, The folllowing is a copy of correspondence between the Science Museum (London) and myself (Copy and paste):
Dear Mr. Horn, Thank-you for your enquiry, as you can see it has taken a rather circuitous route to find an answer.
As you may be aware ‘Puffing Billy’ was built several years before 1825, the date popularly considered to be when the railways began and well before the birth of ‘Rocket’. The story of ‘Puffing Billy’ really begins in the mid 18th Century when the owners of Wylam Colliery laid a five-mile long waggonway from their colliery to the riverside staithes of the Tyne . The waggonway was level throughout its length, constructed of timber rails 3 ½ inches wide and 4 ½ inches deep attached to stone sleepers at 18 inch intervals but more importantly the gauge was 5 feet throughout.
In 1800 the Wylam estates passed to Christopher Blackett, who ordered the colliery’s first locomotive, however it was not used on the waggonway because it was felt that it was too heavy for the wooden rails and so remained as a stationary engine. In 1808 the wooden waggonway was improved by the laying of L-shaped plate rails.
William Hedley had been appointed ‘Viewer’ of Wylam Colliery in 1805, Hedley had kept a close eye on the development of locomotives and with the blessing of Blackett he built a test vehicle to carry out experiments. At some point around 1812/3 he added a boiler to his test vehicle. A new vehicle was created the following year, by which time a young Timothy Hackworth was assisting Hedley, and a further one in 1815.
All of Hedley’s locomotives were built to be used on a specific waggonway, that of the Wylam Colliery. Therefore they all conformed to the 5 foot gauge.
Stephenson worked not far away at the Killingworth Colliery, he persuaded his employers that he could build them a locomotive, naturally this was built to the gauge of the Killingworth waggonway, Stephenson then moved on to construct the Hetton Colliery railway, which in turn led to his involvement in the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
As can be seen there was in fact no standard gauge for these waggonways, and in many cases it was not envisaged that they would link together to form a ‘railway’ network. The gauges ranged from 4’ (Tanfield) up to 5’ (Wylam), Killingworth was 4’8” as was the Hetton Line built by Stephenson. It was Stephenson’s influence that created the 4’8” Stockton and Darlington Railway and because he was chosen, over John Rennie, to be the engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that too conformed to the 4’8” gauge. (Rennie had wanted 5’6”).
It would appear that the 4’8” gauge was adopted simply because the most popular consultant was most familiar with it. Incidentally I have not managed to find out when the extra 1/2“ was added.
Sources:
Lee, C.E., 1943, The Evolution of the Railways, (Railway Gazette: London )
Brookes, P.R.B., 1975, Wylam and its Railway Pioneers, (Wylam Parish Council)
Duty Curator
Search Engine
National Railway Museum
Leeman Road
York
YO26 4XJ
Search.engine@nrm.org.uk
From: Freedom of Information (SCM) Sent: 24 June 2008 11:26 To: Search Engine Subject: FW: Website comment form
Dear Search Engine
Please could I ask you to respond to this enquiry and let me have a copy of your response.
Thank you
Sarah
Sarah Norville Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer NMSI
The members of the NMSI family include: Science Museum , National Media Museum , National Railway Museum , Locomotion
National Railway Museum Leeman Road York YO26 4XJ t. 01904 686242 e. sarah.norville@nrm.org.uk
From: Nowak Michalina Sent: 24 June 2008 11:22 To: Freedom of Information (SCM) Subject: FW: Website comment form
Michalina Nowak Commercial Operations Coordinator
020 7942 4422
From: donotreply@nmsi.ac.uk [1] Sent: 24 June 2008 00:56 To: Feedback (SCM) Subject: Website comment form
Website comment form
Comments:
What was the track gauge for: 1) Puffing Billy 2) The Rocket It appeared to be more than 1435 mm.
Require reply:
Yes
Name:
Peter Horn
Nationality:
Canadian
Address:
909 rue Wilfrid-Laurier Laval QC
County:
Canada
Postcode:
H7V 3E9
Email Address:
phorn12000@yahoo.ca
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned on behalf of NMSI for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
End of Copy and paste
Peter Horn 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the above??? Peter Horn 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
.
The
June 2008 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) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)