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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Sturmvogel 66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --
Menti
fisto 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 10 cm Gebirgshaubitze M 99, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 10 cm Feldhaubitze M 99. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop ceating new articles for ones that already exist, like you did above, and with the article 9 cm FK M. 75/96, a recreation of 9 cm Feldkanone M 75/96. Use the "#REDIRECT[[ ]]" to create redirects. For help on this, see WP:REDIRECT. smooth0707 ( talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to this list. It is particularly appreciated because I understand how confusing the naming of articles can be with respect to artillery equipment-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Great content additions, thanks!
I am not sure if your noticed that your edits have introduced an error in the images, which no longer line up with the rest of the article and which partly obscure the template. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What error do you mean? The infoboxes aren't obscured at all on my Mac using Firefox and Safari and the pictures line up just fine with the infobox. The picture from Kubinka is sized differently from those in the infoboxes, but I'd be happy to accept advice on where to put it so that the page looks better graphically. I've more content to add on the combat history of the Karl-Gerät for the rest of the war, just need to get the time to write it up.
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How does it look now? I took out the thumb command. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/Komatsu-Type-60-twin-106-mm-self-propelled-recoilless-gun-Japan.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill [pf] 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The
February 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) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have moved your Talk:Fountain of Time discussion to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time. Please comment there.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, can you say whether these are the same gun ? DE Wiki has a separate article for each. I understand in 380-mm-Geschütz Max E , E stands for Eisenbahngeschutz - so is this Langer Max on a rail mount ? I think Langer Max is just a slang term and we should be using the correct name in EN Wiki. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 08:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I'm interested to know why you removed the photograph of the gun at Hanstholm.. is it incorrectly identified ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 09:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. I know you had once told me that in German gun nomenclature of the WWI period, "SK" (as in, say, an 28cm SKL/45) stood for Schiffskanone. A few days ago, a new editor changed all instances of that to Schnelladekanone. My question is: which one is correct? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy ( talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm toying with writing up an article on the German coast defenses of Belgium, but my scans from Miller's report are kinda marginal in legibility. Your scans seem to be higher quality than mine, judging from some of the pictures that you uploaded. I'd be appreciative if you could give the diagrams on pp. 758 and 759 a try. Please let me know if you upload them. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you erase the text place names etc. and retype the text. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want, you can nominate some/all of the articles you have been creating at T:TDYK. Just a thought. :) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
For your excellent article contributions that led to your placing 2nd in the April 2009 Milhist writing contest with a total of 95 points, you are hereby awarded the The Writer's Barnstar! Well done! Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) |
The
April 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) 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations very nice article. Please check the citations, Nr. 12 looks out of line. Nr. 18 and 20 have a strange range of pages 34–5 50–1. I was just criticized for using the & ampersand, so you may want to change Chamberlain & Doyle to Chamberlain and Doyle. You also may want to use "ndash" instead of – for page ranges. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. I have reviewed this article for WP:GA (the review is here). There are only a couple of minor issues, and so I've passed it. Nice work! Parsecboy ( talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You rated Battle of Callantsoog (1799) start class recently, apparently because you thought a number of references lacking. It would be helpful if you indicated which citations you think need to be added, especially as I already supplied additional citations at the request of Dashiellx. A similar question concerns your rating of Convention of Alkmaar.-- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of LT vz. 34 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator ( talk) 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to let you know that I really appreciated your helpful comments concerning the Battle of Hampton Roads. I am only sorry that we could not find anything about the Virginia exhibit at the Mariners Museum. Anyway, I hope that we can work together again sometime in the future. PKKloeppel ( talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 08:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, do you think that German guns in WWI should be put in a "World War I artillery of Germany" category to standardise it with other countries ? Rod Rcbutcher ( talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sturmvogel. Yes, I agree that the articles are fully cited, however, I failed them on this criterion as they are all from the same source and it is typically accepted that for an article to reach B-Class it needs more than one source (as I stated in my edit summary). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
I hereby present you with the The Writer's Barnstar for your tremendous effort (29 articles, 101 points) in the May 2009 Military history WikiProject Contest. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
The
May 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) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies talk 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
The WikiChevrons | ||
For your tremendous effort in placing first during the June 2009 Military history WikiProject Contest, amassing a tally of 64 points from 16 articles, I am pleased to present you with the WikiChevrons! Well done! Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
Wikiproject:Did you know 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The
June 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) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I see from the number of entries that you are hard at work for the July contest. As one who often scores the contest, I'd like to ask you to help us (and yourself) out a bit. When you have finished working on an article, request an assessment for it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Doing this will help make the contest scoring a bit easier and may increase your point total, in addition to giving you some informal feedback on the articles. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. Did you see my comment here about Kagas assessment? I wanted to make sure you did, so you could add a little more to the WWII service section. Remember you've still got today and tomorrow before the July contest ends. If you can add a little more detail, I'll be happy to upgrade it to B-class. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, its been busy here with summer school and all. At the moment we need content -anything- just to get this up and running. In other words, pen whatever you feel like penning and once we actually have pages to work with we will see about polishing up the content and merging and trimming and copy editing and all that other stuff. That's pretty much the reason for the content drive; we are begging people to write like the wind so we can get clear out the fog so to speak. Pen whatever you think the topic should be about and we will sort it out in October :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I replied on my talk page. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Your essay was a godsend; Ed! ( talk · contribs) encountered the edit tab bunch-up problem problem during his ACR for the 24th Infantry, and I had no idea where to send him for help until you added your essay. Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, and thanks for your GA reviews! One request: when you pass articles for GA status, such as in this edit, please use an edit summary of "GA" or "GA pass", as it makes it much easier for maintanence. Thanks! Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 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) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have either fixed or responded to each of your points on the I Corps GAR. Please provide further guidance as to where I should go from here. — Ed! (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Sturmvogel 66! I have recently nominated Soviet cruiser Molotov, an article you have been editing, for Did you know, to be featured on Main Page. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Please, if you can, put in refs and footnotes to the article regarding [1] Molotov being the first Soviet ship to carry a radar, [2] her involvement in Operation Barbarossa, and [3] the namesake. If you like, you can propose new hooks, too. Many thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! -- PFHLai ( talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to nominate your new/expanded articles—like the one I just read, Soviet cruiser Kaganovich—at T:TDYK. Also remember that the 5x expansion rule applies to prose, so infoboxes and the like do not count; User:Dr pda/prosesize.js can be used to calculate this. Cheers friend, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) - no prob. I'd love to collab sometime though. I need to email the guy at Warship International again about getting a couple articles... In other news, nice rewrite of Stalingrad so far. The problem is that I can't really help; G&D fail and only have four (that's right, four) paragraphs on these ships. — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) - I'd assume that is because of the major redesigns after '46? At least, I hope it is. Also, nommed at T:TDYK for you. :-) — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't expect y'all to be quite so quick on editing the article while I was working on the protection section that we had several edit conflicts. I've compared versions and think that I've incorporated all of y'all's changes. Please note, however, that the plural of bureau is bureaux and that Admiral Kuznetsov already had a link earlier in the article. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I'll just be more careful when I write and save more often. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm mainly done; the only semi-major thing to be done is to discuss Stalin's defensive doctrine in a little bit more detail although I need to think about that a bit to decide where and how to present it. I'll do that before I submit it for GA, but I'm not in a hurry right now. So feel free to edit away and I'll post a request for an assessment. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 11:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 11:09, 28 August 2009 (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. |
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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Sturmvogel 66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --
Menti
fisto 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 10 cm Gebirgshaubitze M 99, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 10 cm Feldhaubitze M 99. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop ceating new articles for ones that already exist, like you did above, and with the article 9 cm FK M. 75/96, a recreation of 9 cm Feldkanone M 75/96. Use the "#REDIRECT[[ ]]" to create redirects. For help on this, see WP:REDIRECT. smooth0707 ( talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to this list. It is particularly appreciated because I understand how confusing the naming of articles can be with respect to artillery equipment-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Great content additions, thanks!
I am not sure if your noticed that your edits have introduced an error in the images, which no longer line up with the rest of the article and which partly obscure the template. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What error do you mean? The infoboxes aren't obscured at all on my Mac using Firefox and Safari and the pictures line up just fine with the infobox. The picture from Kubinka is sized differently from those in the infoboxes, but I'd be happy to accept advice on where to put it so that the page looks better graphically. I've more content to add on the combat history of the Karl-Gerät for the rest of the war, just need to get the time to write it up.
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How does it look now? I took out the thumb command. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/Komatsu-Type-60-twin-106-mm-self-propelled-recoilless-gun-Japan.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Type 60 Self-propelled 106 mm Recoilless Gun saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill [pf] 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The
February 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) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have moved your Talk:Fountain of Time discussion to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time. Please comment there.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, can you say whether these are the same gun ? DE Wiki has a separate article for each. I understand in 380-mm-Geschütz Max E , E stands for Eisenbahngeschutz - so is this Langer Max on a rail mount ? I think Langer Max is just a slang term and we should be using the correct name in EN Wiki. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 08:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I'm interested to know why you removed the photograph of the gun at Hanstholm.. is it incorrectly identified ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 09:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. I know you had once told me that in German gun nomenclature of the WWI period, "SK" (as in, say, an 28cm SKL/45) stood for Schiffskanone. A few days ago, a new editor changed all instances of that to Schnelladekanone. My question is: which one is correct? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy ( talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm toying with writing up an article on the German coast defenses of Belgium, but my scans from Miller's report are kinda marginal in legibility. Your scans seem to be higher quality than mine, judging from some of the pictures that you uploaded. I'd be appreciative if you could give the diagrams on pp. 758 and 759 a try. Please let me know if you upload them. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you erase the text place names etc. and retype the text. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want, you can nominate some/all of the articles you have been creating at T:TDYK. Just a thought. :) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
For your excellent article contributions that led to your placing 2nd in the April 2009 Milhist writing contest with a total of 95 points, you are hereby awarded the The Writer's Barnstar! Well done! Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) |
The
April 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) 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations very nice article. Please check the citations, Nr. 12 looks out of line. Nr. 18 and 20 have a strange range of pages 34–5 50–1. I was just criticized for using the & ampersand, so you may want to change Chamberlain & Doyle to Chamberlain and Doyle. You also may want to use "ndash" instead of – for page ranges. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. I have reviewed this article for WP:GA (the review is here). There are only a couple of minor issues, and so I've passed it. Nice work! Parsecboy ( talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You rated Battle of Callantsoog (1799) start class recently, apparently because you thought a number of references lacking. It would be helpful if you indicated which citations you think need to be added, especially as I already supplied additional citations at the request of Dashiellx. A similar question concerns your rating of Convention of Alkmaar.-- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of LT vz. 34 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator ( talk) 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to let you know that I really appreciated your helpful comments concerning the Battle of Hampton Roads. I am only sorry that we could not find anything about the Virginia exhibit at the Mariners Museum. Anyway, I hope that we can work together again sometime in the future. PKKloeppel ( talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 08:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, do you think that German guns in WWI should be put in a "World War I artillery of Germany" category to standardise it with other countries ? Rod Rcbutcher ( talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sturmvogel. Yes, I agree that the articles are fully cited, however, I failed them on this criterion as they are all from the same source and it is typically accepted that for an article to reach B-Class it needs more than one source (as I stated in my edit summary). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
I hereby present you with the The Writer's Barnstar for your tremendous effort (29 articles, 101 points) in the May 2009 Military history WikiProject Contest. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
The
May 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) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies talk 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
The WikiChevrons | ||
For your tremendous effort in placing first during the June 2009 Military history WikiProject Contest, amassing a tally of 64 points from 16 articles, I am pleased to present you with the WikiChevrons! Well done! Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
Wikiproject:Did you know 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The
June 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) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I see from the number of entries that you are hard at work for the July contest. As one who often scores the contest, I'd like to ask you to help us (and yourself) out a bit. When you have finished working on an article, request an assessment for it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Doing this will help make the contest scoring a bit easier and may increase your point total, in addition to giving you some informal feedback on the articles. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel. Did you see my comment here about Kagas assessment? I wanted to make sure you did, so you could add a little more to the WWII service section. Remember you've still got today and tomorrow before the July contest ends. If you can add a little more detail, I'll be happy to upgrade it to B-class. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, its been busy here with summer school and all. At the moment we need content -anything- just to get this up and running. In other words, pen whatever you feel like penning and once we actually have pages to work with we will see about polishing up the content and merging and trimming and copy editing and all that other stuff. That's pretty much the reason for the content drive; we are begging people to write like the wind so we can get clear out the fog so to speak. Pen whatever you think the topic should be about and we will sort it out in October :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I replied on my talk page. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Your essay was a godsend; Ed! ( talk · contribs) encountered the edit tab bunch-up problem problem during his ACR for the 24th Infantry, and I had no idea where to send him for help until you added your essay. Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, and thanks for your GA reviews! One request: when you pass articles for GA status, such as in this edit, please use an edit summary of "GA" or "GA pass", as it makes it much easier for maintanence. Thanks! Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 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) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have either fixed or responded to each of your points on the I Corps GAR. Please provide further guidance as to where I should go from here. — Ed! (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Sturmvogel 66! I have recently nominated Soviet cruiser Molotov, an article you have been editing, for Did you know, to be featured on Main Page. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Please, if you can, put in refs and footnotes to the article regarding [1] Molotov being the first Soviet ship to carry a radar, [2] her involvement in Operation Barbarossa, and [3] the namesake. If you like, you can propose new hooks, too. Many thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! -- PFHLai ( talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to nominate your new/expanded articles—like the one I just read, Soviet cruiser Kaganovich—at T:TDYK. Also remember that the 5x expansion rule applies to prose, so infoboxes and the like do not count; User:Dr pda/prosesize.js can be used to calculate this. Cheers friend, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) - no prob. I'd love to collab sometime though. I need to email the guy at Warship International again about getting a couple articles... In other news, nice rewrite of Stalingrad so far. The problem is that I can't really help; G&D fail and only have four (that's right, four) paragraphs on these ships. — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) - I'd assume that is because of the major redesigns after '46? At least, I hope it is. Also, nommed at T:TDYK for you. :-) — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't expect y'all to be quite so quick on editing the article while I was working on the protection section that we had several edit conflicts. I've compared versions and think that I've incorporated all of y'all's changes. Please note, however, that the plural of bureau is bureaux and that Admiral Kuznetsov already had a link earlier in the article. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I'll just be more careful when I write and save more often. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm mainly done; the only semi-major thing to be done is to discuss Stalin's defensive doctrine in a little bit more detail although I need to think about that a bit to decide where and how to present it. I'll do that before I submit it for GA, but I'm not in a hurry right now. So feel free to edit away and I'll post a request for an assessment. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 11:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 11:09, 28 August 2009 (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. |