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, LWF/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

P.S.

Could you please provide a little information in some of your new articles, for example who makes a weapon and when it was first introduced. Some people may want to delete your articles if they don't give enough context.

Kappa 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I will do my best, but it does not help that FAS.org uses different names, but nevertheless I will do my best. LWF 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union, please feel free to make suggestions, or just be bold! :) - FrancisTyers 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the hidden message. by the way, I don't know if it's already happened, but this person added some of the same kind of stuff to other articles. It may have already been deleted but we should watch this person to see if they do any more of this. And on another note, how do you do those hidden messages? LWF 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I got it out of a few articles, but the whole game/anime/comicscruft is pretty widespread. The hidden messages are simply HTML comments. The format is <!-- text -->. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Before you set on a translation, the first thing to do is collect sources. English Wikipedia has much more stringent critera regarding FAs because of inline citations. Russian article relies heavily on external links references, which is not enough for English FA criteria.

I also suggest you to post this at the WP:MILHIST portal (in Translation department), as we have several Russian-speaking people there that will be able to help you.

Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear LWF,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you havn't yet made enough contributions to be considered trusted. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

Appreciate clearing the vandalism from my user page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Glitch in the matrix. I was reverting the anon's addition; it got submitted after yours and the deletions got put back in. reverted-- Mmx1 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, what's your opinion. Should MMx keep sweeping F-14 free from any notion that the F-14 was designed for agility? Remember that F-14 test pilot has testified to this on TV. -- matador300 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I folded this in from a longer sentence elsewhere. It's not mine and I would keep this: "Skilled pilots could fight smaller fighters such as the F-16, which have a higher roll rate, to a draw. " The F-14 has a slower roll rate because of the spacing of the engines (angular momentum is mass time angular velocity times radius or something like that, similar problem with P-38 vs Zero)

I would also mention that the F-14 never got the AMRAAM because a) it had the Phoenix b) by the time the Phoenix was retired, the F-14 was slated to be replaced by the F-18E anyways (I hate F/A-18E/F). (too busy to think up an insult to sling right now...) --05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also do a bit of reseasrch, Modern Marvels says these planes will be SCRAPPED. Sounds like some admirals want to bury the F-14 so deep it will never come back, considering how many completely useless airplanes we mothball. These F-14s are like USS Missouris with wings, the little tiny ships that replaced them will never be quite the same. --05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I hope Mmx1 doesn't mess this up, he's back to trashing Air superiority fighter, and erases any attempt to put the F-14 back on that page, sigh. See the Flight International article on the F-14 page. -- matador300 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please put this back. I have Aviation week article on YF-17 which shows it was based on a redesigned F-5, and yes, it is quite a legacy. -- matador300 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The F-5 has long be regarded as an entry level fighter that was not suitable to frontline use the US armed forces. However, the legacy of this humble design would continue into the 21st century as the Navy's primary and only carrier based combat jet.

Since you're familiar with the LWF (I watched it in High school), what do you think of the research I just found at the Seattle Public library that the F-17 is based on the wings, leading edge extenstions and nose of the F-5? Also interesting the F-18E is almost as heavy as the F-14, F-17 and F-5 maxed at about 25,000 lbs. F-18E is 1st plane good enough to replace entire teen series, at some expense and sacrifice in some capabilities vs F-15.

-- matador300 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm CQJ, and I'm attempting to figure out what the deal with the F-14 article is in regards to the Mediation Cabal request. I've read the talk page several times yet can't make heads or tails of what the exact content issue is, but from reading the talk pages and the article, you might be able to help me make some sense of it. If you could swing by my talk page and shed some light on the situation, I'd appreciate it. CQJ 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for Comment on Wiarthurhu Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. as the next step to resolving the issues on the F-14 Tomcat page. Your input is requested. -- Mmx1 05:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I don't think the two instances you mentioned are as clear-cut evidence of personal attacks and I think there is adequate documentation of more explicit NPA violations. I'll give you a heads up if further input is required. -- Mmx1 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're siding with MMx??? His research and conduct are, well, I can't say it here. -- matador300 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that somewhere in the RfC there should be a mention of the small dispute of whether or not Boyd, (who thought the F-14 was not maneuverable) is a better source than the sellers ( test pilot, engineering VP) because that is a genuinely good question. Which source should we treat as more reliable, the company, or the man who developed E-M (now used as an industry standard)?--LWF 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page...we can talk here; I keep it on my watchlist). The RfC is on user conduct, not for debating the content. If and when this makes it back to a content dispute, that is a very valid point. I have stepped back from editing the F-14 articles so as not to ignite a content dispute, but I will back up the consensus of other editors with respect to that page. -- Mmx1 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realize the RfC was for conduct only. If I need to tell you anything from my talk page, I'll just put your username in the description.-- LWF 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey LWF, I don't understand your siding with MMx1. Did you condone removing the F-14 as an air supeirority fighter, or dismissing all publications up to a book by Janes and the engineering manager of the F-14 as invalid sources, or his logic that partial omission of maneuverability from two open source articles (one even stated swing-wing made it more maneuverable than without) that the F-14 was therefore not designed to be maneuverable? Even Mmx1 conceded his errors on the design for maneuverability and air superiority point, and those errors have not resurfaced. I'm the first editor to successfully challenge bullying behavior and fix these errors, I should be getting medal for doing this instead of being the one put on trial, sheesh. -- matador300 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I side with him because I have information that shows, that when compared to its contempories, that it is not the "unsurpassed dogfighter" that everything in existance makes it out to be. Remember my quote from Boyd? The man who created the Energy-maneuverability theory, he ran the numbers on the F-111, and was the first to tell the USAF that the F-111 would die very quickly in a dogfight. He'd also ran the numbers on the F-14, and you know what? Lo and behold, the F-14 was not a good dogfighter, it was far too heavy to be an effective dogfighter, and if you load it up with fuel tanks and heavy missiles like the phoenix, it's even worse. And while its swing-wings may improve low speed maneuverability, dogfights don't take place at such low speeds. A skilled pilot will only dogfight as a last resort, and then he will try and end it quickly. Besides, most of the time it won't be one on one, in which case flying at such low speeds is likely to get you killed. By the way, I prefer information that actually cites its sources. It's why I prefer FAS and the book Boyd in this case. Besides, they're not trying to sell me cheap cable.-- LWF 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh. The point was not whether it was the best dogfigter, it was whether it was designed to be one. The engineering VP and Flight magazine said so. And whether it was an air superiority fighter. Again the 1969 Flight magazine said so. You LIKE Mmx1's tactics (listed on my userpage??)

If that's the case why couldn't you and Mmx1 agree that the article should say something along the lines of the F-14 was designed primarily as an interceptor with some secondary dogfight capability. Although not as much as if it were a dedicated fighter. By the way, I find it interesting that you talk about his tactics, while you're the one calling him a bastard.

Some parts I thought you might find interesting (from the hardcover, if you don't have it at the moment or the same edition I can type it later):

• p204; 5th paragraph of Chapter 14.
• p.231, right after the quote you posted about the F-14, "Navy admirals strongly discourage simulated battles between the F-14 and the latest Air Force fighters. But those engagements occasionally take place. And when they do, given pilots of equal ability, the F-14 always loses."

I'd like to do some independent verification before inserting the content anywhere, but it is quite interesting reading. Planning on incorporating some of the A-X/A-10 stuff later tonight. -- Mmx1 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the hardcover edition. I just decided to keep the quote short, plus I decided Matador might balk at some of that. -- LWF 15:52, 9 August 2006 (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:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone help me. I uploaded a picture I took at the National Air and Space Museum, and I can't put it on the X-1's page. If anyone could give me instructions on how I would really appreciate it. LWF 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Added it; feel free to edit and use as a template. The parameters should be self-explanatory. A fuller explanation: Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax-- Mmx1 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to look at the extended image. LWF 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, LWF! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The September 2006 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 is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Now only have i realized my mistake. anyway, i felt this would add more interest on the Ohka article. -- Justox dizaola 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You can save yourself some work by just using the standard warnings templates for vandals, rather than typing in a warning. The templates, in order of severity, are:

• {{ test}}
• {{ test2}}
• {{ test3}}
• {{ test4}}

Using the templates is a lot easier than typing in a new warning...and it keeps us all consistent! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'd never actually seen those in that form before. That'll be a big help. LWF 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Also, if you catch someone after he's already done a lot of vandalism, or if he's done really serious vandalism like trashing user pages, you can use {{ blatantvandal}} or in extremely serious cases {{ test4im}}. You can find a complete list of templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, in order to work these do I just type what's in the interior barackets or what? LWF 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's say for example someone just says "hi!" in the Mikoyan MiG-29 article. You can send him this:

{{subst:test-n|Mikoyan MiG-29}} -- ~~~~

After he vandalizes a second or third time, you can send him:

{{subst:test2-n|Mikoyan MiG-29}} -- ~~~~

If someone persistently vandalizes the article, you can move on to:

{{subst:test3-n|Mikoyan MiG-29}} -- ~~~~

And finally, as a last warning before you report him to WP:AIV, you can send him:

{{subst:test4-n|Mikoyan MiG-29}} -- ~~~~

You can find more details in WP:VANDAL -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment on my request for adminship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asams10 ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for jumping in, but the wolves have already drawn and quartered me. I'm going to have an out of body experience and watch the carnage, then regroup and take the constructive criticism to heart. Thanks again for your support and hope they don't chase you down for commenting. Keep up the good fight. -- Asams10 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

your an avaition person for wiki? man i think you and i will have a good chat about them im a plane finactic Tu-49 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I in fact do edit the aviation sections of wikipedia, as well as firearms, and assorted military topics.-- LWF 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC) any aation articles you want to write let me know and i can be of asstince not to show im better than you, you might have more knowlege than me Tu-49 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Su-35 and Su-37 articles are total crap. They look like they were written by moronic fanboys who don't know anything about aviation other than what's in Ace Combat... Hell, the morons even thought that the Su-30MK that crashed at the 1999 Paris Air Show was a (non-existent) two-seat Su-35 because it had canards. I've been trying to improve them, but since you seem to know quite a bit about Russian military equipment, help would really be appreciated. Zaku Two 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd be glad to be of service.-- LWF 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

SU-37 artilce looks like crap but the plane is ASSOME and the 30MK is not real it was a Su-30 Tu-49 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was an Su-30, I'm pretty sure the original Su-30 was a single seat aircraft... but whatever kind of Su-30 it was, that was one hell of a stupid mistake on the Su-37 page. Zaku Two 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

for the thing about the Atoll missile on operation Bolo are you sure it was a tiwaneesse F-86 and Chinese MiG-17 I remeber hearing it was a MiG-15 the F-86 squared off with when the sidewinder missile got caught in the tail fin Tu-49 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure. Just take a look on the article on the Atoll, the whole thing is there, and cited, too.-- LWF 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can you leave me the URL that this image was taken from? I plan to delete it, and I want to have evidence to back up my claim of copyright infringement when Tu-49 comes to breathe down my neck about it. Thanks, Karl Dickman  ^talk 04:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the url but type in the name in Picsearch.com, and it'll pop up.-- LWF 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia:WikiProject:Firearms is now in its proper location. -- RHaworth 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to the project. If I could code, I would create a banner, but I cannot code for my life. My question is, on the civillian sporter versions of military firearms, does the Weapons task force or do we have jurisdiction? Iguess it doesn't matter to my, but I want to know what banner would be appropriate. JVkamp 03:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have jurisdiction over civilian sporters, as they aren't used by the military. On the note of the banner, I can code some but it takes me a while, plus I code in a different language than the wikipedia text box.-- LWF 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

References needed

In order for the de Havilland Comet article to be treated as a serious piece of research, there has to be some check on the constant reversions and revisons that have occurred in the recent history of the article. There are many reputable sources of information available and editors should qualify their commentary with appropriate references, otherwise the work comes off as a flawed, less than neutral observation. I can appreciate that the Comet represents an iconic aviation programme that has been the subject of ongoing interest, however, scholarly, balanced research should be the watchword. Bzuk 22:23 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby award you, LWF, the Civility Award for demonstrating a high level of diplomacy and civility during a particularly difficult and controversial debate. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I second that, LWF! With some practice you might even get the Firm but fair award! (Note that that award even seems to include a gun, but I prefer yours with the cup of coffee!) -- Theosch 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for your kind closing comment on the talk page in question. -- Theosch 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! -- SXT40 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, but one I just can't understand. Tell me, why is it that you cannot add Ace Combat references to the "Popular Culture" section? (Specifically on the Sukhoi Su-47 article) I understand that people shouldn't be adding facts based on a game, but, if there's a place to reference the game, this seems to be the place for it. So, why are Ace Combat references blocked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soldieroffortune7 ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Mostly because Ace Combat is not an accurate simulation of aerial combat. So an appearence in it is not very important because it could have been any other airplane, and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Not only that, think of how cluttered every article would get if every appearence in a game was mentioned, some of the lists would be huge. The rule of thumb is that if the appearence makes a difference to the plane, you know, makes well known, sort of like the Walther PPK and James Bond, then it can be put in the article.-- LWF 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But still, I don't see how mentioning the appearance of the aircraft in Ace Combat could be "cluttering" the article any more than its appearance in any other form of culture. For example, in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, the aircraft employed by The Shop could have easily been, say, a MiG, and this detail didn't make a significant difference to the story, nor to the Su-47's "legacy". So you see, there's no particular reason why the mention of Ace Combat is any different from any other form of culture. Soldieroffortune7 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I was invited to this discussion, but I don't think any of that pop culture junk should be in the article. How could it possibly matter what was in this or that game or novel or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised that junk lasted this long. Military aircraft isn't my area so I'm content to leave it to those who have more interest. But if it were in a firearms-related article, I'd ice the whole section in a heartbeat. A fantasy world has no bearing in reality except for very extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Dirty Harry's .44 or James Bond's PPK). To my mind, the acid test is whether or not a complete layman would make the connection. Reading what's there now, and being a layman in military aircraft, I say none of it belongs. — Thernlund ^{( Talk | Contribs)} 05:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole section does need to go, but it's been there for quite a while. Since it is the Aircraft WikiProject's policy, it should be removed. In fact, according to said wikiproject, Ace Comabt should always be removed on sight. As well as what's already there.-- LWF 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the reason we don't allow Ace Combat, we really should be frying any references to Lethal Skies, too... even though the idiot reviewers thought it was more realistic simply because it has Red Out and Black Out, the F-5 can reach Mach 2 at sea level in a matter of seconds... The only console games that even approach the realism of a Jane's sim are Over G Fighters and Aero Elite: Combat Academy, and, like Ace Combat, they have far too many aircraft to list in every article. Zaku ^Talk 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let 'em hang high and fry...-- LWF 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Thernlund said, only exceptional cases. All right, so, if this were the case, then nearly all references would have to go. I just wanted to understand why it was that only Ace Combat was banned from the "Culture" section. It just didn't seem fair to discriminate against one certain game, regardless of accuracy. Soldieroffortune7 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the blanking I missed on Gun. I didn't even notice it when I was getting rid of some random vandalism inside. -- FaerieInGrey 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I always go further back when checking for vandalism, for that exact reason. Unfortunately, when I've asked for Gun receiving protection they have said that there wasn't enough recently. Maybe this time.-- LWF 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{ WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
• We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope I can be helpful. Robbskey 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)