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 WikiChevrons | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Featured Article Medal | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For your work on Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Nick-D by TomStar81 ( Talk) on 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The World War Barnstar | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the World War Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work on Bougainville counterattack you are hereby awarded The left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for October to December 2018 reviews.
MilHistBot (
talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Thanks for taking the time to Judicial independence in Australia. Just out of curiosity, is there anything directly about not including quotations in the lead? I am only asking because it is common in legal journals in Australia so I had looked at MOS:LEAD which didn't seem to rule it out. And yes I am familiar with WP:beans. Cheers Find bruce ( talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
At long last I've reworked the article in response to your last comments. See if they're satisfactory. Ibuki-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw your remarks for the first time today. Duly noted. I'll get around to doing something to address them when I have more time. Dapi89 ( talk) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Jack90s15 ( talk) 05:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC) is the trial transcripts ok to put if I only put that for a source,for the war crimes of the Wehrmacht? since it shows why the IMT did not declare it to be, and it shows they acknowledged the war crimes the IMT, and it does confuse the reader with multiple trials
@ Nick-D: Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)ok I get it now what you mean it is linked the war crimes of the Wehrmacht page, to the Nuremberg trials page and that one shows they did convict members of the high command, as criminals.and again thank you for showing me what I was doing wrong, I will stand guard for war crimes of the Wehrmacht page and stop, any vandalism like that one time I did for the page!
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
I unreservedly apologise for my Undo, Nick. I had come back to my computer, tired, after a long break and was confused between this and another matter. It was complicated also by my computer being controlled by that of a family member, also a Wikipedia contributor, until I spotted it and resumed independent operation. Over all, a real train wreck. The take-home message for me is to ensure I am fully alert before going near Wikipedia. Again, my apologies. I understand how annoying it was.
DAHall (
talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[1] I think this may well be another sock of Harvey Carter. Would you mind taking a look? W C M email 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I never claimed this article was actually any good, and it's not surprising that some of these things need better referencing, but it's not going to happen: the presumption of non-notability for current and former political candidates will trump WP:GNG every time unless the article is incredibly well-done, and no one is going to waste their time making an article that strong with an AfD being as aggressively pursued as that one.
The 2004 election was uniquely controversial because its the one time in Senate history where a major party has directed their preferences such as to elect a party from the opposite political extreme over minor parties on their own side of politics, and Risstrom, as the person who missed out as a result of that act, is remembered for it, with the sources to back it up. I'm much busier in real life than I used to be, and it's absolutely not a productive use of my time to spend half a day trawling through them and putting a good article together when people clearly aren't paying any further attention than "unsuccessful candidate" before responding with "KILL IT".
The city council issue is similar: the sources exist as much for Risstrom as they do for his peers, but having sufficient breadth and depth of sources to pass WP:GNG if he were something other a city councillor doesn't matter when you've got enough people with opinions about city councillors.
I sometimes don't mind trying to do that work if I sense that people are genuinely interested in seeing a bad article rewritten to WP:GNG standards, but the idea that some in that AfD seem to have that people are going to spend half a day rewriting an article in this situation in the hope that some of those people might change their minds, given the attitudes displayed, is just never going to happen. It's just part and parcel of Wikipedia that there are some areas that are inevitably going to have crap articles because good work is too likely to be arbitrarily whacked for anyone to bother doing decent work. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I've been working on the James P. Hagerstrom article for a while; it passed A-Class a few months ago and I think it's almost ready for FAC. As this would be my first nomination, I would appreciate your thoughts on its readiness and your guidance as to any pointers or things to improve in the article. Thanks, /~ hue sat lum/ 17:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I just did a total misfire at one of our intrepid hard working cat everything eds from across th ditch... And realise my misfire involved an understanding of why some articles are strange... From your knowledge, does a coroner who reviews death due to arson/bushfire have any scope of stating a death was 'murder' ? I am intrigued by the totally unmaintained article that leads me to this query /info/en/?search=2005%E2%80%9306_Australian_bushfire_season The coroner in my understanding has no capacity to designate a death in that way yet we have a mess of categories suggesting crime, murder and other things... maybe we need to review bushfire season articles that have that designation? JarrahTree 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I am currently sitting with Graham M- S - and it is quite a misnomer to allocate I Corps - that is the American corps headquartered in Rockhampton - it was not an Australian item. If you are near a phone and want a conversation about this try my number now - and please delete that when you read this thanks... JarrahTree 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC) It would be great if you could call. JarrahTree 06:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Australian army has not used roman numerals for corps or division names. War Diaries, for 1 Aust Corps always refer to the unit as 1 Aust Corps, minutes and instructions from army HQ always referred to 1 Aust Corps - I Corps is not Australian but was in fact an the name of the American Corps based in Rockhampton. Graham McKenzie-Smith, Graham Robert (2018), The unit guide : the Australian Army 1939-1945, Big Sky Publishing, ISBN 978-1-925675-14-6 is happy to discuss further online or offline - the issue is a misnomer against perhaps lazy historians? - thanks - cheers JarrahTree 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a post from March 23rd that posted about a possible phishing scam-site link that had been in the article. Could you please take a look at it and rev-del or whatever?...if it is a phishing attempt the info shouldn't even be left in the archives... Shearonink ( talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this should cover the war until 1943. Perhaps renaming it Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II would be better. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for January to March 2019 reviews.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your help on SOLRAD 1. I will effect changes tomorrow! -- Neopeius ( talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The SPFLT Achievement Patch | ||
For your substantial contribution to WP: SPFLT. Neopeius ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) |
(and thanks very much for your review of
SOLRAD 1!)
Since you are involved with Military articles, I have a question regarding Battle of St. Quentin (1557). What is the standard for including/listing/mentioning nobles killed in a battle?
I have found a reliable source stating Jean, Count of Soissons and Enghien was killed at St. Quentin in 1557. Although, Jean was not, as far as I know, a commander at this battle. Should Jean be mentioned within the article(not the infobox), or should Jean be mentioned in both the article and infobox, or not at all? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I’ve been working on the British National (Overseas) article for a while and I’ve listed it as an FAC. I’ve been able to get three supports so far, and I wanted to reach out to ask if you’d be willing to review (and hopefully support!) it as well. Would appreciate your thoughts on the article. Thanks, Horserice ( talk) 07:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
A editor wanted to add a footnote about Japan's surrender in 1995. (See J. Robert Oppenheimer#Weird footnote) Could you have a look and give an opinion on whether it belongs in the article or not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I noticed you reverted my minor edit on Penny Wong. The reason why I rephrased her father's heritage is because it flows better with the description of her mother. The article describes her mother as Australian, not being of Australian origin. Therefore, it just makes more sense to refer to her father as Malaysian Chinese instead being of Malaysian Chinese origin. 173.176.133.219 ( talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I never claimed Malaysian Chinese to be a nationality. It would be like saying someone's father is British Indian, British Chinese or Thai Chinese. I have switched it to Malaysian of Chinese origin as a compromise. Saying he is of Malaysian Chinese origin implies that he is of another nationality (neither Malaysian or Chinese). 173.176.133.219 ( talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I did wonder if Jackson was a step too far removed, but here's my logic: if the space race counts as MILHIST (which, I believe, we usually say it does), it's basically down to how far out our net goes for space-race-as-Milhist. There were a few borderline cases - I left out Edgar Allan Poe, since, though he was in the army, he seems completely non-notable for anything military-related, in the slightest. Meanwhile, Fawcett is pretty clearly on the MILHIST side of the border for her work in the Boer War reports on POWs. Tarbell's work on the Women's Committee of the Council of National Defense in WWI is probably enough for MILHIST, and she also did a biography of Lincoln, so she probably passes as well, as I read it. Jackson was always the one I had most doubts about.
Use your judgement, of course, I'm just trying to get a feel as to where the border lies so, when I do this in future, you won't have to remove things. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing what new things one can learn on Wikipedia! See this tidbit. And yes, I reverted it. :) - BilCat ( talk) 01:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I re-read it again, and I think I understand what they were trying to say, but it's so poorly written it's ambiguous, and at first reading seems to say that Tasmania isn't a state. Either way, it doesn't add much. - BilCat ( talk)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
G'day, Nick, given your efforts with the 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia), I wonder if you would be keen to work together on the 1st and 2nd Armoured Brigade articles? If not, have you got any suggestions about things you'd like to see added or adjusted before a possible run at GAN or ACR? I currently don't have access to Hadel anymore, so I wonder if maybe you do? Finally, what are your thoughts about the Orders of Battle.com website as asource? Should this be replaced potentially before taking it further? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I never meant to offend you on FP candidate Mr. Ahmed, Former Somalian President. I just stated a fact. Never directed to you. Hope you accept my apologies. Kind regards. -- LLcentury ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey there,
I recognize that I fall pretty far to one side of the issue, and that I couldn't eliminate my biases from that timeline. That said, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I was trying to give editors a scaffold to build off of. I'd appreciate it if you could restore the timeline, minus whatever parts you felt were non-neutral or unhelpful. Point out what I need to further substantiate. I don't want to re-revert, but deleting the post wholesale is not productive. No complaints if you feel you need to delete large portions in the interest of neutrality, I've been on the other side of the coin plenty of times. Cheers, Tazerdadog ( talk) 11:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure if you received my ping and were just busy. But I would like to ask you to please review the TFA blurb I wrote for Operation Goodwood in my sandbox. I would appreciate any feedback you can offer here about accuracy. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the years I've seen many Argentine nationalists trying to argue that Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The argument goes that that Argentine nationality law confers citizenship on anyone born in Argentine territory, Argentina claims the Falklands hence 2+2=5 and Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The basic argument is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN by inferring conclusions from two separate facts.
You will also regularly see opinion pieces from individuals making the same argument. The more sophisticated claim that by citing these opinion pieces they are citing fact. Allied to this are the few occasions when islanders have acquired Argentine papers e.g. [3], which are used as propaganda by the Argentine regime.
What would be required to source this reliably would be a neutral academic source, giving a considered opinion on the matter. However, I've never seen anyone able to produce one, instead they can only cite opinions in newspaper op ed pieces.
I have been trying to point this out to an editor on the talk page and to be honest the discussion is going round in circles with the guy resorting to ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees. He's now placed a call to arms here soliciting support from Argentine nationalists.
Can I just get a reality check here, I would like an independent perspective on what I've said. W C M email 18:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop targeting me with all of these reverts all the time, I'm not a useless IP account who's vandalizes articles etc. and dude you're not being helpful, you're just a bully who's there watching to revert all of my edits like 1984 by George Orwell. Please rethink your behavior. Darth Tomotron (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That was nasty. DuncanHill ( talk) 11:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You recently blocked User:Patton976 for having a "disruption only account". This block was carried out after a fellow member of a wikiproject made a complaint on that project's talkpage. Neither you nor the complaining editor attempted any communication with the "offending" party, not on the article's talkpage and not on their own. Where were they to have defended their edits? On the MILHIST talkpage? Seems totally inappropriate. Primergrey ( talk) 12:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Primergrey and Andy Dingley: I think that the posts at User talk:Patton976 overnight confirm that this is an AnnalesSchool sock, and I have tagged accordingly. At very least the repeated threats to use multiple sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia is spectacularly unhelpful. As 331dot ( talk · contribs) had already re-blocked the editor for threatening to sockpuppet, I have not changed the block rationale. Please see also WP:AN#Awareness. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2019
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2019
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The sources say for the PTS and Red Berets etc that they are 'military free-fall qualified' which is another name for HALO/HAHO. PTS teachs all methods of parachuting to ADF personal. The picture of the CCTs at the top of the page shows that they jumping out of the plane without static lines which means they're free falling. Darth Tomotron (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ Nick-D: I just want to say sorry for the way I was in the beginning I realize now it was disruptive and annoying that I did not listening to the note that was on the World War II page.And also the other Interactions we had in the past thank you for being real with me and telling me I was not really doing good with editing. I hope we can work together in the future with different WW2 projects! Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Nick, I see this was nominated (not by you) at WP:TFAP for September 15. Give me a shout if you want a blurb for this one. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Landing at Jacquinot Bay, Operation Obviate, and 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Catechism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 09:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Operation Catechism for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Operation Goodwood (naval) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 22 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, "one of the British Royal Navy's largest operations of World War II, and one of its most embarrassing failures. A force centred around five aircraft carriers was dispatched in late August 1944 to repeatedly attack the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. However, due to a combination of bad weather and the inadequate performance of the RN's main strike bomber all they achieved was to put a large dent in the roof of one of the battleship's turrets and strike her with another shoddily made bomb which failed to explode. Following the operation, the task of attacking Tirpitz was transferred to the Royal Air Force, which soon put her permanently out of action."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I was wondering whether an author who has published a bunch of books with Osprey Publishing would typically qualify as notable. [4] It amuses me that we are citing this guy on dozens of articles on a wide variety of subjects and I was thinking of writing a stub. More here. I see from your reviews that Osprey is pretty hit and miss. Haukur ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Catechism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nick. I would like to nominate War cabinet crisis, May 1940 at FA and, as it would be my first FAC, I'm taking the good advice on offer that I should seek a mentor. I see that you are interested in military history and politics. This article is essentially about a major political issue but with the strong military background of the Dunkirk evacuation. I have initially posted the article at WP:PR, again as advised by the FA process.
I'm still fairly new as a member of WP but I had used the site for many years and I decided to join after I retired from work end of last year. I've worked on several articles and two have been promoted to GA while three more are in the GA waiting list. One of those is Norway Debate which is not far removed from War cabinet crisis, May 1940 and I would eventually like to take that one to FA as well.
I'll leave that with you, Nick, and I hope you will be interested. Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nick. Thank you for the comprehensive feedback which will be useful when I can work on the article again. Unfortunately, I must abandon the site for the foreseeable due to illness at home. Will be in touch when I can return. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick D, Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Nick, It’s Eli.
Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nick, might have a look/see over on Coll/Res on my talk page, read-on following down through both Coll and Res, hope all's well, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 04:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 15, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 15, 2019. Thanks!— Wehwalt ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the recent edits removing apologia. I decided to have a look at the article and, right off the bat, I was struck by this section in the infobox:
| predecessor = Adolf Hitler (as Führer) | successor = * Theodor Heuss (1949; as President of West Germany) * Wilhelm Pieck (1949; as President of East Germany) * Richard von Weizsäcker (1990; as President of United Germany)
Wait, what? These individuals must be turning in their graves that they had "succeeded" Doenitz in their posts. And not just one, but three of them! -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I was answering semoiprotected edit requests today when I noticed quite a backlog at Coverage of Google Street View. You indef semiprotected that page back in 2016 due to persistent vandalism. However, it seems to be a page where IPs are frequently interested in contributing constructively as well. Would you consider removing the protection to see how it goes? I will watch the page and request reprotection if it becomes a problem. Thanks! A2soup ( talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please stop with your edits. Let me do what ever I want. Thanks Cesartaco2005 ( talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hope to see you again at a meetup one day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Operation Paravane, which "covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, "the service history of the main type of fighter aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force has operated since the mid 1980s. During this period the RAAF's F/A-18s have been deployed around the globe, and took part in the Iraq War in 2003. However, they're starting to wear out, and the Air Force is hoping to replace them by the end of this decade."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for South China Sea raid, "among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory. "! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello- I wanted to let you know that I have reverted ( [6]) an edit from Aug 2018 ( [7]). Geographyinitiative ( talk) 05:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question "why do we need refs in the lead", which is a fair one, is that sometimes editors will, in certain articles, argue with the contents of the lead so persistently that it is quicker to just put a ref in the lead despite the fact that strictly if the material is in the body and sourced the lead it doesn't need a separate one. Britmax ( talk) 11:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Nick-D: This is from The Wiener Library, the world’s oldest archive on the Holocaust and the Nazi era.
I thought it world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the opening. One of the other sources used is from the Florida Center for Instructional Technology if this Source is not ok to change it to. I will drop it I thought this world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the opening Jack90s15 ( talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: I did not mean for that to come as what I did to before. Do you know of any World War II pages that need more Citations or ones that don't have any? Jack90s15 ( talk) 14:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Thanks! I will look at what needs work and see what I can do Jack90s15 ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
My cranium, my rectum. (Tim 'n me's cool.) Context-- Brogo13 ( talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Hello -
There were more participants in the Battle of the Atlantic, each nation I've provided I sourced properly;
Greetings User:Nick-D, your recent deletion of vast sections contradict with WP:DEL and WP:RS. All information is verifiable, your claims of bias are not aligned with WP:AGF. If you have suggestions or links you would like to add in regard to Gladys Liu then please do so, I actively encourage constructive discussion. Your other grievance over the "Chinese Police cars" being fake is indeed correct but still relevant to the article, the CCP is known for using such intimidation tactics on the foreign diaspora. Thankyou.-- Caltraser55 ( talk) 06:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nice work on Operation Catechism! I first read of it years ago in Paul Brickhill's book, and one thing I never understood was the failure of the Luftwaffe at Bardufoss to protect the Tirpitz (Brickhill didn't understand it either!) There's a partial answer now, anyway, and probably the best we'll ever get under the circumstances. The willingness of the RAF to send two elite bombing squadrons into harm's way like that is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 29, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page.. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Operation Obviate, "the second-last of a long running series of Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II, and took place on 29 October 1944. The battleship had been crippled by an attack several weeks prior, but was targeted again as the Allies had not been able to confirm the extent of the damage and remained concerned that she posed a threat. A force of 39 heavy bombers armed with huge, and very expensive, bombs flew from Scotland to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway, deliberately violating Sweden's neutrality en-route. The operation ended in failure as the battleship was covered by cloud just before the bombers arrived, and while most dropped their bombs no hits were achieved. The aircrews' success in scoring several near misses despite the conditions demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack two weeks later."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I hope when you are free, review User:Paul Siebert/sandbox's sandbox for updated WWII page with C/R.
It is with your guidance that we would be most helpful to completing the task, since besides you and Paul Siebert ( talk) there are few and far between who possess the moral compass and are instrumental and measure up to editing my work. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 23:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not only did you not respond to my sincere apology on my talk page, I see you were not content with only removing the Gladys Liu section and instead deleted an entire page worth of material relating to a rather serious topic. Well done Nick-D on doing the work of the CCP and silencing all other members from posting factual assessment of the situation.-- Caltraser55 ( talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I hope you are well. Given your work on the Labuan and Tarakan articles, I was wondering if you would be keen to try to work together on the Borneo campaign (1945) article? I've done a little work on it today -- largely structural -- but it still needs a lot of work. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why did you erase the edit I did in the Battle of Luzon if Antonio Cárdenas was the actual leader of the Mexican Expeditionary Air Force which was actually independent of any office in the US Air Force? At your service, Stturm ( talk) 09:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC). P.D. Sorry for all the edits, I´m new to all of this. P.D. 2 How was he a junior rank if he was a Colonel? And if that is really a junior rank, why is there a lieutenant colonel in the list then? Besides, the FAEM were under total mexican command even if they were integrated to a USAF Fighter Group.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
I am really non-plussed at your revert.
My version:
Your version:
Are you really believing the current version is 'better' for having the "10 miles" jammed up against a period, and followed by its own period? Are you seeing something different, due to the use of the "{{convert|10|mi|km}}."?
Re-write the sentence to make it better if you want, to include the 10 miles visibility figure as you wish. But as it is now it's trash, which is why I was fixing it. Shenme ( talk) 02:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between July and September 2019.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I noticed your comment here. Well, this is not whole story. Suvorov wrote several additional books to refute books by his opponents, and his views do look convincing to me (I am not an expert in WWII history of course). Main question here is what exactly views by Suvorov his opponents were trying to refute. Main idea of the book is that Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the "Icebreaker") against the West. You (or someone else) puts it differently in the last paragraph here: the book Icebreaker in which he claimed that Stalin had seen the outbreak of war in Western Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent, and that the Soviet military was being deployed for an imminent attack at the time of the German invasion. That statement includes two parts. First part (spreading the communist system) is actually obvious, and that is what Stalin actually did - as a matter of fact. Second part is that "Soviet military was being deployed", meaning it was only in the process of deployment, but has not been full deployed yet - according to Suvorov. This is a matter of debate and can be decided only based on analysis of factual information. Suvorov provides a lot of factual data that support such hypothesis in his several books. So, if anyone really wants to dig into this, he should read these several books by Suvorov and books by his opponents. One thing is certain: nothing Suvorov wrote was "pro-Hitler". Yes, he critcized Stalin by telling he was also responsible for the WWII, but this is common place (because of the secret protocols to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and something different. My very best wishes ( talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a book review that I have placed at the bottom of The Bugle talk page for the next issue. Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service will shortly be scheduled by Ealdgyth as today's featured article for 2 Nov. For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be a blurb review on the talk page of the article's FAC nomination page. Further edits and thoughts, on the article or the blurb, are welcome. Thanks! (She'll be back editing in a few days ... we wanted to give everyone a heads-up.) - Dank ( push to talk) 22:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Operation Catechism has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Why did you have to revert my edit? I was just doing my job of removing redlinks because it does not show the actual link to the page. Anyway, Cheers! Central Time 301
Hi Nick, to clear the air, and know you are finding it frustrating, but really appreciate your insight, hard work and engagement here. The article is much improved again from how it was two weeks ago, largely thanks to you. Ceoil ( talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive the intrusion; I am sorry to bother you & won't bother you further after a quick request. I hope you will revisit your thoughts regarding the article in light of a recently posted expert opinion. Sorry again for the intrusion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's really quite an achievement, and all 3 were good reads. I'm glad you were able to get all three to run on their respective dates. Thank you for the work on those. A deeply impressive effort. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I have to go away for a few days for work to help out with the bush fire relief effort, flying out late tonight. Wondering if you might take a quick look at the Battle of North Borneo article and adding some review comment on the talk page for me to work on when I get back? Or, if you are feeling keen, please make whatever changes you feel are necessary to the article. I would be keen to try to get this to GAN eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, that's quite a lot of work you've done on the Aussie M113 article, so well done on that. There's a couple of points I think might not be right, I think someone might have goofed in the ANAO doc the tracks went from the usual T130 through some Diehl type and then as part of the AS3/AS4 upgrade to T150F tracks. It would be one hell of a coincidence if that were the designation of the turret too. Secondly, I would read it as saying saying both the AS3 and AS4 were lengthened, as far as I know very few AS3 types were made, it's mostly an AS4 fleet, and the AS3 kept the 5 road wheel configuration. Last few paragraphs here: https://www.army.gov.au/media-room/media-releases/50-years-service-for-m113 Ways ( talk) 12:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Nick, a quick note to thank you for writing the fantastic article M113 armored personnel carriers in Australian service, it is a great addition. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 03:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC).
Hi Nick - I don't know if you are a regular at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board (I only discovered it recently), but I wonder if you could have a look at my request there and investigate when you have time? At least one IP made another edit along similar lines today, and I suspect they're all linked... Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the comment you left at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland was meant for the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland_(2) (the latter is the one I meant to link from MILHIST; it was initially named identically to the first section and later renamed). I assume you followed my link and ended at the first, rather than second, section. Both are related as they concern the same remedy, but the issues raised are a bit different. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
South China Sea raid is listed for January 10 at TFAP (by someone else), but I'm not seeing any notification on your talk page. If you're on board with the nomination, I'll go ahead and do a blurb. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC) It will be in my Sandbox/1 if you want to work on it. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I was wondering if you were in a position to support or oppose this FAC? Or if there are any further comments you would like me to address? Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The article M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the South China Sea raid article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 12, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just since you were active on the Pacific War Talk page before, I thought you might be interested in a proposal here: Talk:Empire of Japan#Predecessors and Successors -- Havsjö ( talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That you'll see a bunch of reverts of your edits - I got a copy of the book that Seaofwords1 was adding and it's actually quite useful - I'm restoring it to the articles and will be working on them in the near future. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Dank has sub-contracted out to me the blurb writing for some MilHist FAs, against the day when they are TFAs. I have completed a draft for Operation Inmate, see here. I have gone with a slightly cropped version of an image from the article, judging that it would show up better at TFA size than the one at the top of the infobox. But if you disagree, feel free to swap them. Merry Christmas. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:21, 24 December 2019 (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 WikiChevrons | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Featured Article Medal | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For your work on Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Nick-D by TomStar81 ( Talk) on 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The World War Barnstar | ||
For your work on South China Sea raid Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the World War Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work on Bougainville counterattack you are hereby awarded The left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for October to December 2018 reviews.
MilHistBot (
talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Thanks for taking the time to Judicial independence in Australia. Just out of curiosity, is there anything directly about not including quotations in the lead? I am only asking because it is common in legal journals in Australia so I had looked at MOS:LEAD which didn't seem to rule it out. And yes I am familiar with WP:beans. Cheers Find bruce ( talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
At long last I've reworked the article in response to your last comments. See if they're satisfactory. Ibuki-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw your remarks for the first time today. Duly noted. I'll get around to doing something to address them when I have more time. Dapi89 ( talk) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Jack90s15 ( talk) 05:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC) is the trial transcripts ok to put if I only put that for a source,for the war crimes of the Wehrmacht? since it shows why the IMT did not declare it to be, and it shows they acknowledged the war crimes the IMT, and it does confuse the reader with multiple trials
@ Nick-D: Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)ok I get it now what you mean it is linked the war crimes of the Wehrmacht page, to the Nuremberg trials page and that one shows they did convict members of the high command, as criminals.and again thank you for showing me what I was doing wrong, I will stand guard for war crimes of the Wehrmacht page and stop, any vandalism like that one time I did for the page!
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
I unreservedly apologise for my Undo, Nick. I had come back to my computer, tired, after a long break and was confused between this and another matter. It was complicated also by my computer being controlled by that of a family member, also a Wikipedia contributor, until I spotted it and resumed independent operation. Over all, a real train wreck. The take-home message for me is to ensure I am fully alert before going near Wikipedia. Again, my apologies. I understand how annoying it was.
DAHall (
talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[1] I think this may well be another sock of Harvey Carter. Would you mind taking a look? W C M email 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I never claimed this article was actually any good, and it's not surprising that some of these things need better referencing, but it's not going to happen: the presumption of non-notability for current and former political candidates will trump WP:GNG every time unless the article is incredibly well-done, and no one is going to waste their time making an article that strong with an AfD being as aggressively pursued as that one.
The 2004 election was uniquely controversial because its the one time in Senate history where a major party has directed their preferences such as to elect a party from the opposite political extreme over minor parties on their own side of politics, and Risstrom, as the person who missed out as a result of that act, is remembered for it, with the sources to back it up. I'm much busier in real life than I used to be, and it's absolutely not a productive use of my time to spend half a day trawling through them and putting a good article together when people clearly aren't paying any further attention than "unsuccessful candidate" before responding with "KILL IT".
The city council issue is similar: the sources exist as much for Risstrom as they do for his peers, but having sufficient breadth and depth of sources to pass WP:GNG if he were something other a city councillor doesn't matter when you've got enough people with opinions about city councillors.
I sometimes don't mind trying to do that work if I sense that people are genuinely interested in seeing a bad article rewritten to WP:GNG standards, but the idea that some in that AfD seem to have that people are going to spend half a day rewriting an article in this situation in the hope that some of those people might change their minds, given the attitudes displayed, is just never going to happen. It's just part and parcel of Wikipedia that there are some areas that are inevitably going to have crap articles because good work is too likely to be arbitrarily whacked for anyone to bother doing decent work. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I've been working on the James P. Hagerstrom article for a while; it passed A-Class a few months ago and I think it's almost ready for FAC. As this would be my first nomination, I would appreciate your thoughts on its readiness and your guidance as to any pointers or things to improve in the article. Thanks, /~ hue sat lum/ 17:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I just did a total misfire at one of our intrepid hard working cat everything eds from across th ditch... And realise my misfire involved an understanding of why some articles are strange... From your knowledge, does a coroner who reviews death due to arson/bushfire have any scope of stating a death was 'murder' ? I am intrigued by the totally unmaintained article that leads me to this query /info/en/?search=2005%E2%80%9306_Australian_bushfire_season The coroner in my understanding has no capacity to designate a death in that way yet we have a mess of categories suggesting crime, murder and other things... maybe we need to review bushfire season articles that have that designation? JarrahTree 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I am currently sitting with Graham M- S - and it is quite a misnomer to allocate I Corps - that is the American corps headquartered in Rockhampton - it was not an Australian item. If you are near a phone and want a conversation about this try my number now - and please delete that when you read this thanks... JarrahTree 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC) It would be great if you could call. JarrahTree 06:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Australian army has not used roman numerals for corps or division names. War Diaries, for 1 Aust Corps always refer to the unit as 1 Aust Corps, minutes and instructions from army HQ always referred to 1 Aust Corps - I Corps is not Australian but was in fact an the name of the American Corps based in Rockhampton. Graham McKenzie-Smith, Graham Robert (2018), The unit guide : the Australian Army 1939-1945, Big Sky Publishing, ISBN 978-1-925675-14-6 is happy to discuss further online or offline - the issue is a misnomer against perhaps lazy historians? - thanks - cheers JarrahTree 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a post from March 23rd that posted about a possible phishing scam-site link that had been in the article. Could you please take a look at it and rev-del or whatever?...if it is a phishing attempt the info shouldn't even be left in the archives... Shearonink ( talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this should cover the war until 1943. Perhaps renaming it Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II would be better. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for January to March 2019 reviews.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your help on SOLRAD 1. I will effect changes tomorrow! -- Neopeius ( talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The SPFLT Achievement Patch | ||
For your substantial contribution to WP: SPFLT. Neopeius ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) |
(and thanks very much for your review of
SOLRAD 1!)
Since you are involved with Military articles, I have a question regarding Battle of St. Quentin (1557). What is the standard for including/listing/mentioning nobles killed in a battle?
I have found a reliable source stating Jean, Count of Soissons and Enghien was killed at St. Quentin in 1557. Although, Jean was not, as far as I know, a commander at this battle. Should Jean be mentioned within the article(not the infobox), or should Jean be mentioned in both the article and infobox, or not at all? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I’ve been working on the British National (Overseas) article for a while and I’ve listed it as an FAC. I’ve been able to get three supports so far, and I wanted to reach out to ask if you’d be willing to review (and hopefully support!) it as well. Would appreciate your thoughts on the article. Thanks, Horserice ( talk) 07:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
A editor wanted to add a footnote about Japan's surrender in 1995. (See J. Robert Oppenheimer#Weird footnote) Could you have a look and give an opinion on whether it belongs in the article or not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I noticed you reverted my minor edit on Penny Wong. The reason why I rephrased her father's heritage is because it flows better with the description of her mother. The article describes her mother as Australian, not being of Australian origin. Therefore, it just makes more sense to refer to her father as Malaysian Chinese instead being of Malaysian Chinese origin. 173.176.133.219 ( talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I never claimed Malaysian Chinese to be a nationality. It would be like saying someone's father is British Indian, British Chinese or Thai Chinese. I have switched it to Malaysian of Chinese origin as a compromise. Saying he is of Malaysian Chinese origin implies that he is of another nationality (neither Malaysian or Chinese). 173.176.133.219 ( talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I did wonder if Jackson was a step too far removed, but here's my logic: if the space race counts as MILHIST (which, I believe, we usually say it does), it's basically down to how far out our net goes for space-race-as-Milhist. There were a few borderline cases - I left out Edgar Allan Poe, since, though he was in the army, he seems completely non-notable for anything military-related, in the slightest. Meanwhile, Fawcett is pretty clearly on the MILHIST side of the border for her work in the Boer War reports on POWs. Tarbell's work on the Women's Committee of the Council of National Defense in WWI is probably enough for MILHIST, and she also did a biography of Lincoln, so she probably passes as well, as I read it. Jackson was always the one I had most doubts about.
Use your judgement, of course, I'm just trying to get a feel as to where the border lies so, when I do this in future, you won't have to remove things. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing what new things one can learn on Wikipedia! See this tidbit. And yes, I reverted it. :) - BilCat ( talk) 01:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I re-read it again, and I think I understand what they were trying to say, but it's so poorly written it's ambiguous, and at first reading seems to say that Tasmania isn't a state. Either way, it doesn't add much. - BilCat ( talk)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
G'day, Nick, given your efforts with the 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia), I wonder if you would be keen to work together on the 1st and 2nd Armoured Brigade articles? If not, have you got any suggestions about things you'd like to see added or adjusted before a possible run at GAN or ACR? I currently don't have access to Hadel anymore, so I wonder if maybe you do? Finally, what are your thoughts about the Orders of Battle.com website as asource? Should this be replaced potentially before taking it further? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I never meant to offend you on FP candidate Mr. Ahmed, Former Somalian President. I just stated a fact. Never directed to you. Hope you accept my apologies. Kind regards. -- LLcentury ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey there,
I recognize that I fall pretty far to one side of the issue, and that I couldn't eliminate my biases from that timeline. That said, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I was trying to give editors a scaffold to build off of. I'd appreciate it if you could restore the timeline, minus whatever parts you felt were non-neutral or unhelpful. Point out what I need to further substantiate. I don't want to re-revert, but deleting the post wholesale is not productive. No complaints if you feel you need to delete large portions in the interest of neutrality, I've been on the other side of the coin plenty of times. Cheers, Tazerdadog ( talk) 11:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure if you received my ping and were just busy. But I would like to ask you to please review the TFA blurb I wrote for Operation Goodwood in my sandbox. I would appreciate any feedback you can offer here about accuracy. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the years I've seen many Argentine nationalists trying to argue that Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The argument goes that that Argentine nationality law confers citizenship on anyone born in Argentine territory, Argentina claims the Falklands hence 2+2=5 and Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The basic argument is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN by inferring conclusions from two separate facts.
You will also regularly see opinion pieces from individuals making the same argument. The more sophisticated claim that by citing these opinion pieces they are citing fact. Allied to this are the few occasions when islanders have acquired Argentine papers e.g. [3], which are used as propaganda by the Argentine regime.
What would be required to source this reliably would be a neutral academic source, giving a considered opinion on the matter. However, I've never seen anyone able to produce one, instead they can only cite opinions in newspaper op ed pieces.
I have been trying to point this out to an editor on the talk page and to be honest the discussion is going round in circles with the guy resorting to ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees. He's now placed a call to arms here soliciting support from Argentine nationalists.
Can I just get a reality check here, I would like an independent perspective on what I've said. W C M email 18:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop targeting me with all of these reverts all the time, I'm not a useless IP account who's vandalizes articles etc. and dude you're not being helpful, you're just a bully who's there watching to revert all of my edits like 1984 by George Orwell. Please rethink your behavior. Darth Tomotron (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That was nasty. DuncanHill ( talk) 11:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You recently blocked User:Patton976 for having a "disruption only account". This block was carried out after a fellow member of a wikiproject made a complaint on that project's talkpage. Neither you nor the complaining editor attempted any communication with the "offending" party, not on the article's talkpage and not on their own. Where were they to have defended their edits? On the MILHIST talkpage? Seems totally inappropriate. Primergrey ( talk) 12:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Primergrey and Andy Dingley: I think that the posts at User talk:Patton976 overnight confirm that this is an AnnalesSchool sock, and I have tagged accordingly. At very least the repeated threats to use multiple sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia is spectacularly unhelpful. As 331dot ( talk · contribs) had already re-blocked the editor for threatening to sockpuppet, I have not changed the block rationale. Please see also WP:AN#Awareness. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2019
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2019
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The sources say for the PTS and Red Berets etc that they are 'military free-fall qualified' which is another name for HALO/HAHO. PTS teachs all methods of parachuting to ADF personal. The picture of the CCTs at the top of the page shows that they jumping out of the plane without static lines which means they're free falling. Darth Tomotron (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ Nick-D: I just want to say sorry for the way I was in the beginning I realize now it was disruptive and annoying that I did not listening to the note that was on the World War II page.And also the other Interactions we had in the past thank you for being real with me and telling me I was not really doing good with editing. I hope we can work together in the future with different WW2 projects! Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Nick, I see this was nominated (not by you) at WP:TFAP for September 15. Give me a shout if you want a blurb for this one. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Landing at Jacquinot Bay, Operation Obviate, and 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Catechism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 09:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Operation Catechism for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Operation Goodwood (naval) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 22 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, "one of the British Royal Navy's largest operations of World War II, and one of its most embarrassing failures. A force centred around five aircraft carriers was dispatched in late August 1944 to repeatedly attack the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. However, due to a combination of bad weather and the inadequate performance of the RN's main strike bomber all they achieved was to put a large dent in the roof of one of the battleship's turrets and strike her with another shoddily made bomb which failed to explode. Following the operation, the task of attacking Tirpitz was transferred to the Royal Air Force, which soon put her permanently out of action."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I was wondering whether an author who has published a bunch of books with Osprey Publishing would typically qualify as notable. [4] It amuses me that we are citing this guy on dozens of articles on a wide variety of subjects and I was thinking of writing a stub. More here. I see from your reviews that Osprey is pretty hit and miss. Haukur ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Catechism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nick. I would like to nominate War cabinet crisis, May 1940 at FA and, as it would be my first FAC, I'm taking the good advice on offer that I should seek a mentor. I see that you are interested in military history and politics. This article is essentially about a major political issue but with the strong military background of the Dunkirk evacuation. I have initially posted the article at WP:PR, again as advised by the FA process.
I'm still fairly new as a member of WP but I had used the site for many years and I decided to join after I retired from work end of last year. I've worked on several articles and two have been promoted to GA while three more are in the GA waiting list. One of those is Norway Debate which is not far removed from War cabinet crisis, May 1940 and I would eventually like to take that one to FA as well.
I'll leave that with you, Nick, and I hope you will be interested. Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nick. Thank you for the comprehensive feedback which will be useful when I can work on the article again. Unfortunately, I must abandon the site for the foreseeable due to illness at home. Will be in touch when I can return. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick D, Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Nick, It’s Eli.
Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 ( talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nick, might have a look/see over on Coll/Res on my talk page, read-on following down through both Coll and Res, hope all's well, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 04:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 15, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 15, 2019. Thanks!— Wehwalt ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the recent edits removing apologia. I decided to have a look at the article and, right off the bat, I was struck by this section in the infobox:
| predecessor = Adolf Hitler (as Führer) | successor = * Theodor Heuss (1949; as President of West Germany) * Wilhelm Pieck (1949; as President of East Germany) * Richard von Weizsäcker (1990; as President of United Germany)
Wait, what? These individuals must be turning in their graves that they had "succeeded" Doenitz in their posts. And not just one, but three of them! -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick! I was answering semoiprotected edit requests today when I noticed quite a backlog at Coverage of Google Street View. You indef semiprotected that page back in 2016 due to persistent vandalism. However, it seems to be a page where IPs are frequently interested in contributing constructively as well. Would you consider removing the protection to see how it goes? I will watch the page and request reprotection if it becomes a problem. Thanks! A2soup ( talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please stop with your edits. Let me do what ever I want. Thanks Cesartaco2005 ( talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hope to see you again at a meetup one day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Operation Paravane, which "covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, "the service history of the main type of fighter aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force has operated since the mid 1980s. During this period the RAAF's F/A-18s have been deployed around the globe, and took part in the Iraq War in 2003. However, they're starting to wear out, and the Air Force is hoping to replace them by the end of this decade."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for South China Sea raid, "among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory. "! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello- I wanted to let you know that I have reverted ( [6]) an edit from Aug 2018 ( [7]). Geographyinitiative ( talk) 05:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question "why do we need refs in the lead", which is a fair one, is that sometimes editors will, in certain articles, argue with the contents of the lead so persistently that it is quicker to just put a ref in the lead despite the fact that strictly if the material is in the body and sourced the lead it doesn't need a separate one. Britmax ( talk) 11:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Nick-D: This is from The Wiener Library, the world’s oldest archive on the Holocaust and the Nazi era.
I thought it world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the opening. One of the other sources used is from the Florida Center for Instructional Technology if this Source is not ok to change it to. I will drop it I thought this world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the opening Jack90s15 ( talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: I did not mean for that to come as what I did to before. Do you know of any World War II pages that need more Citations or ones that don't have any? Jack90s15 ( talk) 14:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: Thanks! I will look at what needs work and see what I can do Jack90s15 ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
My cranium, my rectum. (Tim 'n me's cool.) Context-- Brogo13 ( talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Hello -
There were more participants in the Battle of the Atlantic, each nation I've provided I sourced properly;
Greetings User:Nick-D, your recent deletion of vast sections contradict with WP:DEL and WP:RS. All information is verifiable, your claims of bias are not aligned with WP:AGF. If you have suggestions or links you would like to add in regard to Gladys Liu then please do so, I actively encourage constructive discussion. Your other grievance over the "Chinese Police cars" being fake is indeed correct but still relevant to the article, the CCP is known for using such intimidation tactics on the foreign diaspora. Thankyou.-- Caltraser55 ( talk) 06:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nice work on Operation Catechism! I first read of it years ago in Paul Brickhill's book, and one thing I never understood was the failure of the Luftwaffe at Bardufoss to protect the Tirpitz (Brickhill didn't understand it either!) There's a partial answer now, anyway, and probably the best we'll ever get under the circumstances. The willingness of the RAF to send two elite bombing squadrons into harm's way like that is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 29, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page.. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Operation Obviate, "the second-last of a long running series of Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II, and took place on 29 October 1944. The battleship had been crippled by an attack several weeks prior, but was targeted again as the Allies had not been able to confirm the extent of the damage and remained concerned that she posed a threat. A force of 39 heavy bombers armed with huge, and very expensive, bombs flew from Scotland to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway, deliberately violating Sweden's neutrality en-route. The operation ended in failure as the battleship was covered by cloud just before the bombers arrived, and while most dropped their bombs no hits were achieved. The aircrews' success in scoring several near misses despite the conditions demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack two weeks later."! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I hope when you are free, review User:Paul Siebert/sandbox's sandbox for updated WWII page with C/R.
It is with your guidance that we would be most helpful to completing the task, since besides you and Paul Siebert ( talk) there are few and far between who possess the moral compass and are instrumental and measure up to editing my work. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 23:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not only did you not respond to my sincere apology on my talk page, I see you were not content with only removing the Gladys Liu section and instead deleted an entire page worth of material relating to a rather serious topic. Well done Nick-D on doing the work of the CCP and silencing all other members from posting factual assessment of the situation.-- Caltraser55 ( talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I hope you are well. Given your work on the Labuan and Tarakan articles, I was wondering if you would be keen to try to work together on the Borneo campaign (1945) article? I've done a little work on it today -- largely structural -- but it still needs a lot of work. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why did you erase the edit I did in the Battle of Luzon if Antonio Cárdenas was the actual leader of the Mexican Expeditionary Air Force which was actually independent of any office in the US Air Force? At your service, Stturm ( talk) 09:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC). P.D. Sorry for all the edits, I´m new to all of this. P.D. 2 How was he a junior rank if he was a Colonel? And if that is really a junior rank, why is there a lieutenant colonel in the list then? Besides, the FAEM were under total mexican command even if they were integrated to a USAF Fighter Group.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
I am really non-plussed at your revert.
My version:
Your version:
Are you really believing the current version is 'better' for having the "10 miles" jammed up against a period, and followed by its own period? Are you seeing something different, due to the use of the "{{convert|10|mi|km}}."?
Re-write the sentence to make it better if you want, to include the 10 miles visibility figure as you wish. But as it is now it's trash, which is why I was fixing it. Shenme ( talk) 02:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between July and September 2019.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I noticed your comment here. Well, this is not whole story. Suvorov wrote several additional books to refute books by his opponents, and his views do look convincing to me (I am not an expert in WWII history of course). Main question here is what exactly views by Suvorov his opponents were trying to refute. Main idea of the book is that Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the "Icebreaker") against the West. You (or someone else) puts it differently in the last paragraph here: the book Icebreaker in which he claimed that Stalin had seen the outbreak of war in Western Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent, and that the Soviet military was being deployed for an imminent attack at the time of the German invasion. That statement includes two parts. First part (spreading the communist system) is actually obvious, and that is what Stalin actually did - as a matter of fact. Second part is that "Soviet military was being deployed", meaning it was only in the process of deployment, but has not been full deployed yet - according to Suvorov. This is a matter of debate and can be decided only based on analysis of factual information. Suvorov provides a lot of factual data that support such hypothesis in his several books. So, if anyone really wants to dig into this, he should read these several books by Suvorov and books by his opponents. One thing is certain: nothing Suvorov wrote was "pro-Hitler". Yes, he critcized Stalin by telling he was also responsible for the WWII, but this is common place (because of the secret protocols to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and something different. My very best wishes ( talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a book review that I have placed at the bottom of The Bugle talk page for the next issue. Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service will shortly be scheduled by Ealdgyth as today's featured article for 2 Nov. For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be a blurb review on the talk page of the article's FAC nomination page. Further edits and thoughts, on the article or the blurb, are welcome. Thanks! (She'll be back editing in a few days ... we wanted to give everyone a heads-up.) - Dank ( push to talk) 22:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Operation Catechism has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Why did you have to revert my edit? I was just doing my job of removing redlinks because it does not show the actual link to the page. Anyway, Cheers! Central Time 301
Hi Nick, to clear the air, and know you are finding it frustrating, but really appreciate your insight, hard work and engagement here. The article is much improved again from how it was two weeks ago, largely thanks to you. Ceoil ( talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive the intrusion; I am sorry to bother you & won't bother you further after a quick request. I hope you will revisit your thoughts regarding the article in light of a recently posted expert opinion. Sorry again for the intrusion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's really quite an achievement, and all 3 were good reads. I'm glad you were able to get all three to run on their respective dates. Thank you for the work on those. A deeply impressive effort. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I have to go away for a few days for work to help out with the bush fire relief effort, flying out late tonight. Wondering if you might take a quick look at the Battle of North Borneo article and adding some review comment on the talk page for me to work on when I get back? Or, if you are feeling keen, please make whatever changes you feel are necessary to the article. I would be keen to try to get this to GAN eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, that's quite a lot of work you've done on the Aussie M113 article, so well done on that. There's a couple of points I think might not be right, I think someone might have goofed in the ANAO doc the tracks went from the usual T130 through some Diehl type and then as part of the AS3/AS4 upgrade to T150F tracks. It would be one hell of a coincidence if that were the designation of the turret too. Secondly, I would read it as saying saying both the AS3 and AS4 were lengthened, as far as I know very few AS3 types were made, it's mostly an AS4 fleet, and the AS3 kept the 5 road wheel configuration. Last few paragraphs here: https://www.army.gov.au/media-room/media-releases/50-years-service-for-m113 Ways ( talk) 12:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Nick, a quick note to thank you for writing the fantastic article M113 armored personnel carriers in Australian service, it is a great addition. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 03:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC).
Hi Nick - I don't know if you are a regular at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board (I only discovered it recently), but I wonder if you could have a look at my request there and investigate when you have time? At least one IP made another edit along similar lines today, and I suspect they're all linked... Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the comment you left at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland was meant for the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland_(2) (the latter is the one I meant to link from MILHIST; it was initially named identically to the first section and later renamed). I assume you followed my link and ended at the first, rather than second, section. Both are related as they concern the same remedy, but the issues raised are a bit different. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
South China Sea raid is listed for January 10 at TFAP (by someone else), but I'm not seeing any notification on your talk page. If you're on board with the nomination, I'll go ahead and do a blurb. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC) It will be in my Sandbox/1 if you want to work on it. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I was wondering if you were in a position to support or oppose this FAC? Or if there are any further comments you would like me to address? Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The article M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the South China Sea raid article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 12, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just since you were active on the Pacific War Talk page before, I thought you might be interested in a proposal here: Talk:Empire of Japan#Predecessors and Successors -- Havsjö ( talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That you'll see a bunch of reverts of your edits - I got a copy of the book that Seaofwords1 was adding and it's actually quite useful - I'm restoring it to the articles and will be working on them in the near future. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Dank has sub-contracted out to me the blurb writing for some MilHist FAs, against the day when they are TFAs. I have completed a draft for Operation Inmate, see here. I have gone with a slightly cropped version of an image from the article, judging that it would show up better at TFA size than the one at the top of the infobox. But if you disagree, feel free to swap them. Merry Christmas. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)