User talk:Albrecht/Archive 1

Combatants list and stuff
Hey, I saw you are changing all the time the combatants list of the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish War of Succession articles. Stop changing it unilaterally please. At least talk about it in the talk pages.

About the War of Spanish Succession there are few things:

1) For some reason you unilaterally change the alphabetical arrangement I did for the combatants list.

2) A guy changed "Great Britain" for "England/Great Britain", which is historically correct: at the begin of the war it was England, but at the end of the war it had become the Great Britain. But for some reason, you also change that.

3) You also keep changing the terminology of "Austriacists" and "Philippists". Please, don't do that. I don't know where are you from but these are the names given to the two factions of the war in Spain since the birds can fly.

4) I've also seen that you change things like "Kingdom of Spain" for "Spain", "Kingdom of France" for "France", "Nazi Germany" for "Germany", "Fascist Italy" for "Italy", etc. Well, that's incorrect too: you don't change "Soviet Union" for "Russia", right? Why? Because the article "Russia" displays the information of the modern-day country of Russia while "Soviet Union" shows what was Russia and all the associated republics in the past. So it's the same with "Nazi Germany" and "Fascist Italy". And it's also the same with "Kingdom of Spain" and "Kingdom of France"... if you say "France" instead of "Kingdom of France" it redirects to the modern-day French Republic... and that's wrong...

That's all. So please, talk about it in the Talk Pages of the articles before doing those changes...

Oh, and please, don't use expressions like "Jesus Christ, fix everything"... like if you were the bringer of the mundial knowledge.

Onofre Bouvila 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, in the case of the Spanish Civil War it's pointless that you put "Germany" and "Italy" as combatants, because these names link to the modern day countries. Maybe they didn't call their country "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy" by those times, but everyone knows these countries in that period with these names, and actually there are articles named Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy that show what these countries were by those times, and they were a different thing than what they are today. And putting this in the combatants list is much more clarifying than putting the modern day countries, because it wasn't the Federal Republic of Germany who fought the war, it was the Nazi Germany, and the same with Italy. Or take the example of Russia: you don't put Russia in the article because it wasn't just Russia who fought the war but the whole Soviet Union. So what I did wasn't wrong, and you can't disagree with terms like "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy" because they are vox populi and a proof of this is that, as I said, they have their own articles.


 * Then you put Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union as "subordinated forces" of the Second Spanish Republic // the Spanish Nationalists. Well, they were not a branch of the spaniard factions, they were allied powers, and I think it's much more clarifying if you put in the combatants list "Second Spanish Republic" vs. "Spanish Nationalists" and then "With the support of:". With the way you did it, putting them as "subordinated forces" it seems that they were sub-factions of the main combatants. Anyway it was much more wrong before I changed the combatants list some weeks ago: someone had put the trade unions and the international brigades and more stuff that was totally wrong. And by the way, linking the "Spanish Nationalists" to "Spanish State", or directly putting "Spanish State" in the combatants list is not very appropiate because the Spanish State came after the Republic was defeated, and if you directly put it in the combatants list you are legitimating and giving official recognition to a bunch of rebels who did a coup d'état. The real Spanish State of those times was the Second Spanish Republic.


 * Then you say that we should remove "Austriacists" and "Philippists". I don't think so, because putting that not only shows which were the factions of the war and helps to clarify the conflict but it is also a way to include all those supporters of one or the other faction that fought because they believed on the cause, but were not flagged under any combatant state. And they were hundreds of thousands just in Spain. In addition, this is the name that has been always given to the factions of the war, here in Spain, but I can understand your ignorance about this as you seem to be an anglo. It's almost offensive not to mention the austriacists and philippists (or borbonics, or however you wanna call them) who fought the civil war in the Spanish territory, because it was a civil war, and sometimes it seems that this war was just fought by the british. And about putting the Crown of Aragon maybe it's okay, I had consulted wrong sources. But if you don't put "Austriacists" and "Philippists" you are removing from the history all those individuals who fought for one side or for the other.


 * Onofre Bouvila 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * About the problem with the combatants of the Spanish Civil War, there are two ways to do it:


 * 1) You put Germany linked to Nazi Germany and Italy linkted to Fascist Italy.


 * 2) You directly put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, linking to the articles with the same names.


 * Both options are correct. Maybe using the words Nazi and Fascist is redundant like you said, but it is redundant only when you are already linking the countries to these terms through the articles that make reference to the situation of Germany under the nazism and Italy under the fascism. It is not redundant but completely necessary when you are linking Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy to the Italian Republic: because that is what you did, and it is wrong; what do you say to that? You don't regonise your own mistakes. In addition, it emphasizes on the strong political character of the war (freedom against tirany, reason against dogmatism, a free republic against a totalitarist and fascist state).


 * So we can argue what is better: if Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy or Germany (linking to Nazi Germany) and Italy (linking to Fascist Italy), which is clearly the same (instead the terms Nazi and Fascist may be redundant in the first case). But we cannot argue if Germany and Italy, which are linking to Federal Republic of Germany and to Italian Republic, are more appropiate than what I did, because these terms are wrong. And that's what you did.


 * I didn't make any historical mistake when I put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but you did when you put Germany (linking to Federal Republic of Germany) and Italy (linking to Italian Republic).


 * That was the first point.


 * Then you say that the case of the Soviet Union is different. Well, it is not, because it is right that while Soviet Union was the official name of country by those times, Germany and Italy were not called Nazi and Fascist oficially. But when you are calling them with these names, you are capturing the characteristics of these countries during the 30s. The territories that Germany and Italy had during that period were much different than the territories they occupy today. For example, if you just say "Germany", you don't show that Königsberg was a part of Germany. They were the same countries, but much different. And to show this difference it's much more clarifying to put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the combatants list than Federal Republic of Germany and Italian Republic, which is what you did. And don't come with stuff like that saying "Nazi Germany" is the same than saying "Marxism-Lenninist Russia" or something like that... it's obvious that Nazi Germany is vox populi and defines the state of Germany during those times, while "Marxism-Lenninism" defines a political theory that may be applied to multiple situations... so what you are saying is pointless.


 * Then you say that "Subordinate is obviously meant in terms of the scale of the forces". Well, subordination is what it is; in the Second World War article, the US had x10 the forces of UK and UK is not in a sublist under the US. Anyway it's much more clarifying if you put "With the support of", because you show that the two real combatants were the Second Spanish Republic against the Rebels, while the other forces were unidirectionally helping the two mentioned factions. Putting all the combatants at the same level means that all the combatants of the first faction fought against all the combatants of the second one, and it is not so. And using the sub-bulleted list shows subordination. And as I don't think there is any "special symbol" to show "unidirectional support" (like the bulleted list showing subordination) I think the best that can be done is to write "With the support of", which is what I did.


 * And about the "Spanish State", it is wrong to say that the combatants of the war were the "Spanish State" against the "Second Spanish Republic": "Spanish State" not only refers to the state that Franco created, but it is also a way to define the structure in which the country is organised; and this structure, in 1936, was a Republic. Putting them at the same level creates a conflict of legitimacy: you are generating two legitimate states for Spain: (1) a Republic and (2) a totalitarist state (which was then named "Estado Español" and to which you are  awarding official recognition, a thing that did not have in the bulk of the international community). If they had not won the war, you would never say that "the Spanish State fought against the Republic", because the only state that everyone would recognise when talking about that period would be the Republic. Moreover, no one says that the Spanish State fought against the Republic; a bunch of rebels, did a coup d'état and after overthrowing the legitimate government they created their own state. Finally, when you are generating two states for Spain in the combatants list you are confusing the reader, and it must be clear that Spain had a legitimate state (the Republic) that was overthrew by the rebels that then created what they called El Estado Español.


 * And finally, about the War of Spanish Succession it's okay that the catalan austriacists fall under the Crown of Aragon but as I said there were austriacists and philippists (or borbonics) both in Castile and the old Crown of Aragon, and if you don't use the term Philippists you are missing the hundreds of thousands of individuals who supported the Bourbons, and if you don't use the term Austriacists you are missing the hundreds of thousands of Austriacists that were outside of the Crown of Aragon. Furthermore, when you are linking these terms to the articles of the aspirants for the crown, it's totally clear what do they mean. And it's not pointless to mix flags with coats of arms, because the factions of the war were about two kings, and each one had his own coat of arms, and the people supported the individual more than a nation or a state. It was a civil war, and the civil wars are not so simple. When you, from your personal point of view, disdain these issues, and call the people who fought the war in Spain "a bunch of opportunists" and reject to mention them in the combatants list you are not only being historically unaccurate but also showing a lack of respect for what happened here. And the fact that you had never heard about terms like "Philippists", "Austriacists" or "Borbonic" shows that you are not as well informed as you think.


 * All in all, I agree that the stuff of the combatants list must be simplified, but it cannot be done from a distant, partial, simple and simplifying point of view like yours. You rudely disdain important issues that must be considered.


 * Statements like "the Warbox only needs to tell you that (Italy) it's that country in the Mediterranean shaped like a boot show your high level of reasoning.


 * Onofre Bouvila 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me clue you in on something, chief: Franco won. And even if his side had lost, it would still be more proper for us to use the name they called themselves than to come up with post-facto demonising labels. We're not in a position to judge whether a combatant is an "extremist insurgent" or a "hero of national liberation." Were the Fenians who invaded Canada "terrorist dupes" or "Erin's noble crusaders"? Who can say? That's why we don't rely on the consistency or veracity of any group's description. So you can continue to smother my talk page with talk of "freedom against tirany, reason against dogmatism, a free republic against a totalitarist and fascist state," but when you pollute the articles with your biases, we have a problem.


 * Judging from your comments above, there's obviously nothing to be heard from you on this point besides the rote tirades of an outraged nationalist. Unfortunately, I'm more concerned with arranging these articles in conformity with the guidelines of WP:MILHILST than with debating the legitimacy of the Franco regime. So, what I would suggest is this: Go convince the editors of "American Civil War" to change "Confederate States of America" to "southern rebels and traitors," and then I'll be happy to hear your case. Get going, and good luck.


 * Ok, I've already discussed with you about this and you seem not to understand it. Calling the fascist combatants of the Spanish Civil War article "Spanish State" is simply stupid, because what they called "Spanish State" was something they created when they had overthrown the Republic. But when you are talking about the war, you can't say that it was the "State" against the Republic because the Second Spanish Republic was itself the state. I have already told you this, and it's quite obvious; are you kidding me?


 * Here you have the constitution of the Second Spanish Republic. You can see that the words "Spanish State" appear 9 times in the text. How can you say that the "Spanish Republic" was fighting against the "Spanish State", if the Republic itself was called "Spanish State"?


 * And this is not the same case as in the American Civil War: the Confederated States of America were a group of confederated states in opposition to the United States of America, which were another ones. The confederates didn't say they were the American state: they took their part of the country and they segregated from the whole.


 * By the way you also mention the WP:MILHILST policy. If you go to WP:MILHILST/MCI, you can read "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly (not always) the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding".


 * So all this is totally pointless. You are not right. You are wrong. What can I say if you don't even assume such simple things?


 * Your point about linking to Nazi Germany is understood. But in your zeal to specify regimes with minute historical precision, you've closed your eyes to some pretty severe restrictions and limitations to your approach: sometimes, articles on the former country do not exist. "Fascist Italy" does not link to a former country, but to a political and social ideology.


 * Fascist Italy links to this:


 * "Italian fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini".


 * Italy links to this:


 * "Italy (Italian: Italia, IPA: [i'taːlja]; officially the Italian Republic; Italian: Repubblica Italiana, IPA: [ɾe ˌpubblika ita 'ljaːna]) is a country located in Southern Europe, that comprises the Po River valley, the Italian Peninsula and the two largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea, Sicily and Sardinia".


 * You must be blind if you don't understand the first one is the correct one.


 * In these cases, it's universal practice to link the combatant to its current successor state.


 * Huh? Where is that stated?


 * And it's patent sophistry to claim that the word "Fascist," by itself, gives any indication of how Italian foreign policy affected the course of the war. It doesn't. No reader will infer the political programmes of Hispano-German relations from the word "Nazi," nor is it the purpose of the Infobox to describe them.


 * Not only it gives an indication of how the Italian foreign policy affected the course of the war but also links to the absolutely clear sentence that I mentioned above: "Italian fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini".


 * Likewise, your argument on the basis of territorial differences doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny: Canada is today the same constitutional state as it was a hundred years ago&mdash;notice anything different? Now, if you'd consider adding substance to the article instead of just screwing around with the Warbox, you might be able to touch on the subject.


 * Ok, you seem to be kidding me again. So you are comparing the extense of an Empire with the different reforms that Canada has performed on its internal provinces?


 * It's strange, I've done a lot of reading on the War of the Spanish Succession, (maybe not as much as our friend Raymond Palmer, but enough), but I must have skipped the part where hundreds of thousands of Spaniards fought on either side (Spanish generals had trouble scraping together armies of 10,000-20,000). Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, amigo? In brief:


 * First of all two things: I don't know who is Raymond Palmer and I'm not your amigo. After this:


 * 1. You can go ahead and claim that I'd never heard of these terms. Or you can listen to what I actually said, which is that they mean nothing to the average Anglophone reader. Like it or not, this is an article on a major European war in an English-language encyclopedia, not a treatise on Spanish dynastic history.


 * Your lack of information about the article is not my problem. I have listened to "what you actually said", and your statement "they mean nothing to the average Anglophone reader" strongly violates the WP:NPV. In addition, remember that you are not an anglo, you are québécois.


 * 2. Even if one were to recognize these factions as coherent political entities (which, as explained above, is extremely problematic&mdash;they were morphous monarchical loyalties and nothing more), they would be far fewer in strength than many other states that are not represented, i.e. Prussia, Hungary.


 * WP:MILHILST/MCI: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly (not always) the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."


 * 3. Throwing coats of arms in with flags looks ridiculous.


 * OH RLY?


 * WP:MILHILST/MCI: "smaller groups (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding": if these groups do not have a flag, because they don't belong to a country or a nation, but they are fighting for an individual (such as a king), what's wrong with adding the coat of arms of this individual?


 * Anyway WP:MILHILST just mentions the word "flag" once, and says that "in general, the use of flag icons is not recommended", while WP:MILHILST/MCI doesn't even mention the word "flag".


 * So as you can see, WP:MILHILST gives a lot of freedom in all these matters and it is not so strict as you want to make it look like.


 * 4."Kingdom of Spain," with a Bourbon flag, represents 90+% of Bourbon supporters, while "Crown of Aragon" represents 70+% of Peninsular Habsburg loyalists.


 * Again, OH RLY?


 * As I and my good friend WP:MILHILST said, "smaller groups (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding".


 * Anyway, to conclude: it's totally pointless to discuss with you. My edits in all these matters are correct, when I edit the articles I always create a topic in the talk page and if you have any problem with it I also come to your talk page and I justify my position. The fact you don't want to accept all this is not my problem. We've been discussing about these issues for too long, and I'm tired of it. In the conversations we've had I always replied the problems you raised, and you still not understand it. I just upgrade the articles, adding additional information and explaining and clarifying lots of issues, and all what you do is to revert my changes in these matters taking WP:MILHILST like a preacher takes a Bible, with the difference that while the Bible probably supports what the preacher is saying, while WP:MILHILST does not support you. So you can keep trying to revert my edits, but you won't get anything because like a cucumber, I will keep my WP:SC attitude, and will keep changing the articles again and discussing about it in the talk pages.


 * And here ends this discussion, because since right now, I will definately ignore your complaints and keep doing my own way.


 * Onofre Bouvila 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Question strength numbers for Siege of Tenochtitlan
Back on July 20, 2005, you apparently developed some numbers for the strength box for the [Siege of Tenochtitlan]. I think these numbers (150,000-300,000) are way off and have made the changes that I think are appropriate. However, in the edit summary, you quoted some sources (Hanson and Prescott). If you have time, could you document how you arrived at your numbers in the Talk page for the article? I have already put the justification for my revised numbers in the Talk page. I'm more than willing to discuss and be convinced that your numbers are right and mine are wrong. I just would like to understand what yours are based on. Richard 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Image
Hi Albrecht,

Regarding Nationalist_soldiers_capture_Republican_troops.gif, I don't know anything more about it. I would put more, but that's everything that the Hispanic Society gave as a caption.

Best wishes,

Primetime 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cenepa War
Hello there! Maybe the first exchange of words that we had here in Wikipedia was not the most appropriated one. Hence, a little explanation regarding my actions should be stated: The main reason I was only able to add the "NPOV" tag and not modify that much the article is due to the fact that I'm currently involved in a RFC against my person dealing with this Ecuadorian-Peruvian related articles.

Having explained this, I encourage you to take a look at the talk page. I'm now providing (slowly, but steady) some points that need to be rectify before declaring the article as "neutral". Cheers! And hope to hear from you. Messhermit 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the comments made by the Ecuadorian Wikipedist involved in the "Cenepa War" articles may sound a little out of context... and that is the main reason I didn't want to get too involve with the article. The fact that this user clearly attempts to impose its will is disturbing, specially regarding this conflict. Therefore, I have to state that this user clearly portrays only one side of the story. Thus, I invite you to express yourself in this RFC against my person that is more like a "political trial" (based on conveniently presented evidence). My patience has limits, but I don't go around proudly proclaiming them like the example below. Cheers! And I hope to hear from you. Messhermit 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alcázar on DYK
You may have a good point, but it's one that anyone may readily deduce from a reading of the article. The original suggestion on the DYK talk page referred to howitzers and sappers which do not appear anywhere in the article. Facts mentioned in a DYK entry should appear in the article so, as the updating admin, I changed it to reflect the actual wording used. The artillery bombardment and aerial bombing are mentioned and demonstrate the disproportional balance in the fighting that you think has been lost. The only specific that is missing is the reference to tanks, which the reader of the article can quickly determine were a factor (albeit there were only "2 or 3" of them). I think the essence of the article is still well represented on the DYK page and will hopefully inspire a large number of readers to visit. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Campaignbox
Sorry about that; I didn't realize someone had blanked it. Kirill Lok s h in 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough (although the broader issue of present-day material being included within "military history" is one that I don't think we've fully resolved yet). I suspect part of the problem is that people who work exclusively on the current events may not have had enough interaction with us to recognize our templates; maybe leaving links to WP:MILHIST in the edit summaries would help here. Kirill Lok s  h in 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Albrecht. I wanted to thank you for your kind comments on the work I did months ago on the Cenepa War article. To be honest, there is still little coverage of some very interesting operational & tactical information from the Peruvian side (what I do know, comes mainly from talks with Peruvian friends, so it is not citable). I know you'll understand if I say that it would not be wise for me to get involved in what is taking place there right now. As for patience, well, mine has limits too!:,. Best Regards. -- Andres 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo
I see that you have encountered Your pages are not the first that his has vandalised or the last and the things he did to your pages were rather mild in comparison to the other acts of vandalism he has commited. If you want to stop it go here and add your views to the topic go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation (Deng 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Hello check this out
Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I corrected the attribution - his name was Richard Jack, not Jack Richard. I've attached an article URL for a Legion Magazine article on him as a source, on the talk page for that image.Michael Dorosh 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Major power
See: Articles for deletion/Major power. I think I made a good case. Please add your thoughts to improve the case for deletion ASAP. &mdash;thames 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Power Afd
Hello, I've just noted your comment of the 11th:

''I dislike the antagonistic approach to deletion; I had thought to persuade the article's editors of the validity of my concern. If their consensus is against me I will annul my vote and leave the rest to their judgment. But I'm not touching that article again.''

I do hope that you haven't percieved me as being unduly antagonistic, it certainly wasn't my intention (although, I hope you understand, that a note on the talk page before initiating the afd would have been appreciated). Contributing here should be fun (in the broadest sense of the word), I apologise if I've caused you any disquiet. I must say issues raised by the Afd have changed my feelings towards the article (and the whole int power series in fact). What they need is the attention of people with a background in the academic side of it. It looks like we are about to get into an argument over Italy on the Major Power page and an argument over whether Russia is an emerging superpower on the superpower page - all very tedious and messy.

Essentially these articles need informed editing, please do reconsider your decision. The enthusiastic amateur has his place, but needs to be guided from time to time. As for this enthusiastic amateur, I'm going to take a break from this series, to those areas in which I can claim a little expertise; primarily to articles on South African history - an area which doesn't attact the attention of too many other editors, thank god!

Best wishes, Xdamr 12:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox on Eighty Years' War
If you get a chance, could you perhaps take a look at this discussion on the Eighty Years' War talk page? I know you've had some concerns about how the military conflict infobox was used before, so you might be able to better judge if I'm pushing bureaucratic consistency at the expense of quality. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Madrid
Hi, I see that you are interested in the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps you might be interested in helping to expand the Siege of Madrid (1936-39) article? Its currently a work in progress.

Jdorney 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that I've finished my work on this article (though I'm sure it can still be improved). I wonder can we get it re-assessed from being being a stub class to at least start class?

Cheers,

Jdorney 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) @ 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

About Antonio Castejón Espinosa
Hello Albrecht: I would like to know where did you find the date of dead of Antonio Castejón Espinosa because I have been unable to find it in any Internet page. I think that 1969 is correct (I lived in Seville when he was general lieutenant of that military region) but I am not sure. I am loosing memory with the age ;-)). Thanks for your response. PACO 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Albrecht, thanks for your response. I also have the book of Hugh Thomas (in Spanish), but maybe I passed too quickly over the data ;-)). I am thinking to create the page about Castejón in Wikipedia in Spanish, but now I have a lot of familiar problems and I don't know when I'll have enough time for that. Thanks a lot again. PACO 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Legion
It seems someone copied the Spanish Legion page into Spanish Foreign Legion last month and turned the original title into a disambiguation page. I have requested permision to move the page back to Spanish Legion but a controversial editor has opposed in the talk page (it seems this person has a long history of edit warring on other articles -currently banned for 3RR breach- and it definitely is not my intention to engage on this sort of activity against him or anyone). As you had contributed greatly to the article before, I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Spanish Foreign Legion. Regards, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Campaignboxes linking wars
Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, since the conflicts don't really form a logical sequence, but merely a geographic one. One rule of thumb that might be useful is to consider whether a coherent article about the "group" of conflicts could be written; in other words, would Spanish-Moroccan Wars be a mere list of conflicts, or could it be dealt with as a single larger "conflict" that happens to be broken into stages. If it's the former, having a navigation template is probably not all that useful; the last thing we want is to have a campaignbox for every pair of countries that has found themselves on opposite sides of a war (e.g. Campaignbox Anglo-French Wars). Kirill Lokshin 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok; something like "Spanish colonial wars in Morocco" seems rather more reasonable, since there's actually a common theme beyond the two sides involved. The fact that the participants may vary shouldn't play into it too much; even for the obvious series of wars (e.g. the Napoleonic Wars), there tends to be a lot of variation in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish-Moroccan wars
My apologies You were afraid that you were vague, and I have to admit the same - my edit summary may not have been explanatory. The Green March had nothing to do with Spain, except as a proxy, or only in asmuch as Spanish Sahara was a province of Spain. The conflict was between Morocco and the Polisario Front; so it seems misleading to characterize it as a Spanish-Moroccan conflict (Spain, of course, rolled over and sold out the Sahara, so there was clearly no conflict between the Spanish and Moroccans.) I suppose that since the Sahara was a province at the time, you could justify re-adding it; I won't object. I hope that clears up what I was doing - otherwise, nice template, by the way. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Surrender of Montreal (1760)
If you concerned about the ratio of articles dealing with French victories to British victories, why not flesh-out more articles dealing with French victories or created some stubs on battles or skirmishes that aren't yet a part of the 'pedia? Blanking and redirecting pages that don't fit with your agenda smacks of WP:POINT, and I would ask you to stop because it's a bit disruptive and not very constructive. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is fairly ridiculous, I must admit. It speaks of a "siege," but nothing notable actually happened. If you want a real siege, see the Siege of Paris in 1870-1871. I don't see why someone could not use this article as precedent for creating other articles with the harmless fall of cities.....like "Surrender of London (1066)" or "Surrender of Berlin (1806)." Just opens up an uncomfortable can of worms. I'd personally support for deletion if it came up, but I don't think it would succeed.UberCryxic 04:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Great power peer review
Please see Peer review/Great power/archive1 and comment.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Crown of Aragón
Hi, I see you reverted many of the changes I included in this entry. I can't see why. I am really not trying to leaden anything when I mention that the institutions were kept for some more decades (centuries, actually) after Spain formed: this is just a fact and I think it is interesting to know that the Crown of Aragón kept functioning basically the same way even when Spain was already existing. Is it not? Since I mention this fact, then I mention the moment when these institutions are finally abolished. I would be trying to load this politically if I mentioned some sort of continuity with present day self government, which I do not. I am no nationalist of any kind.

It is true that Barcelona and Valencia shared the economical primacy. I don't have the citation, neither does the present version, so? Then the reference to the Consell de Cent does not fit in there, for this is an article about the Crown of Aragón, not an article about Catalonia's municipal regime.

Again I am surprised at seeing reverted my mention to the Fueros ¿? I am not trying to load anything politically here, just mentioning the well known process in medieval Europe of kings trying to strenghten their power by getting allied with cities or territories which they granted self governemnt.

Last, but not least, I am really against of the use of "Empire". That was no empire. How can someone call Empire a loose confederation of three Peninsular territories? They ruled lands all over the Mediterranean? ok, but again this was a loose one which, besides, didn't last that much anyway.

Please, mate, look into my reasons and let me know what you think: I am hoping you reconsider this matter. As I say above, I am no nationalist of any kind and I am only trying to add some interesting information here, really. Mountolive 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast feedback, Albrecht. Well, indeed I think your revert was quite drastic, but I see no problem -and actually agree- with your point of taking things out of the introduction. Also you are right that, to some extent, a few of my remarks were a bit redundant, even though I still wish to make clear the interesting fact that the Crown of Aragón institutions kept working after uniting with Spain (this is an interesting fact which, besides, proves the Catalan nationalists that "Spain" doesn't necessarily mean lack of self-government, as they want to stress). I may come back to this article again with similar views, but detailed in a different way. I hope you will agree with those, since, as I said, I am actually not trying by any means to endorse the Catalan nationalist view. Mountolive 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a zillion little edits trying to make the history section more lineal and consistent than the previous version, hope that you agree. I guess it could look better, but it's time to go bed now. Mountolive 06:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nine Years' war
Thanks for your comments on the Nine Years’ War article. I must add though that my use of Churchill was very minor.

I’m not sure I agree entirely with your reservations of Churchill as a historian but I understand your concern which is why I use Churchill sparingly - if at all. Chandler quotes him throughout his work – although he does say when discussing Marlborough that Churchill was ‘more than a little parti pris’ ie: Predjudice

Its been some time since I read his Second World War – I have an abridged version. I shall take another look at it taking into consideration what you said.

Thanks again for the comment – coming from someone as yourself, who clearly has knowledge and interest in early modern warfare, it was certainly much appreciated. Raymond Palmer 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I try to only include information that can be verified with another source. The sentence that you refer to:

Although Marshal Luxembourg, with superior numbers defeated William’s army at the bloody Battle of Landen on 29 July, it had little effect beyond attrition; despite suffering enormous casualties, William was able to maintain himself in the field.

The quote that Landen had ‘little effect beyond attrition’ was taken from Lynn. Lynn goes on to say ‘William gathered back dispersed elements of his forces to restore his army’. I used the Churchill quote - ‘was able to maintain himself in the field’ because it is more economical with regards to wording.

If I can’t verify a ‘fact’ from another source I usually don’t put it in the article.

I am currently updating the WOTSS article to bring it up to modern FA status. The existing article is missing plenty of history and is completely unsourced. When its finished I’ll let you know, and if you feel its deficient eg: too anglo-centric, particularly regarding the Duke of Marlborough, I can make the necessary ammendments. When it comes to Marlborough I certainly won’t use Churchill.

Thanks, Raymond Palmer 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not pestering me at all, please comment/discuss as often as you see fit, it's very helpful. Raymond Palmer 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Peninsular War References
I have created a references section instead of further reading section in the Penunsular war article. I added Chandlers Campaigns of Napoleon and Gates The Spanish Ulcer, because I assumed this is the two books you use in the notes. Carl Logan 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your request. I've now given the article a copyedit. Look over it and see if you like it.UberCryxic 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: A question of etiquette
Well, that depends on whether you're content to leave the article in its current state. If you are, then simply ending the discussion may be the best approach, as continuing the debate may provoke a defensive reaction from him. In my experience, such questions of national pride and such tend to blow up into fairly time-consuming fights more often than not. (Which is not to say, of course, that he may not be willing to have a perfectly civil intellectual discussion on the point of significance of contributions and so forth; but, if things get out of hand, you'll likely be forced to spend a lot of time on the issue.) Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cicero at the gates
Meh what are you gona do....I just regret having to go up against a teacher's pet who hasn't read two lines on Waterloo.UberCryxic 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violation?
Commons seems to go through these bouts of copyright insanity every so often; they're really caused by inconsistent copyright law across national borders, and Commons generally choosing to go with the most restrictive possibility even when it's fairly absurd. (I believe they recently deleted their entire stock of photographs of the Bismark.)

Unfortunately, I don't really have any influence on Commons policy, so there's not much I can do at the source of the problem. My advice would be to simply upload the image(s) directly to en:Wikipedia, where the Commons admins can't get to them. Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is that, when the image was moved to Commons, our local copy was deleted; you may need to upload it here again if we want it to stay regardless of what happens to the Commons one. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Jarama
Hi, nice work on this article so far. Three small points I want to address.

Firstly, it is not customary to begin a battle article with a quote from a poem or song. I'm not sure where the quotation comes from (Hugh Thomas obviously quoted it, but where does it originate?), but it surely belongs either somewhere within the article or at the end?

Second, the context of Charlie Donnelly's "even the olives are bleeding" is the recollection of a Canadian veteran as follows, "We ran for cover, Charlie Donnelly, the commander of an Irish company is crouched behind an olive tree. He has picked up a bunch of olives from the ground and is squeexing them. I hear him say something quietly between a lullin machine gun fire:'Even the olives are bleeding' (quoted in Joeseph O'Connor, Even the Olives are Bleeding - the life and times of Charles Donnelly, p.105). O'Connor goes on to say, "a few minutes later, as Donnelly was covering the retreat, he was caught in a burst of gunfire. He was struck three times, in the right arm, the right side and the head. He collapsed and died instantly. thre was no time to retrieve the body. So I think the wording in the Jarama article should be changed accordingly.

Third, the title of the sub-section, "Suicide Hill". This hill (though emotively named) was only one of a series of positions which saw fierce fighting on the Pingarron and Pajares heights on February 12-14 1937. The title of the sub-section should reflect this and not magnify the importance of just one of these actions which involved British volunteers.

That's it. Well done again, on your contributions so far. I await your response before making the changes.

Jdorney 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, some more thoughts on improving the article.

First, I think a map would be a big help, as the descriptions of the fighting are surely very confusing to someone who has not seen a map of the positions in question. Beevor has a good one in his book. I may be able to do one based on his and upload it.

Also, reading through the article, it seems strange to me that the Republicans seem to have used their Soviet armour extensively and the Nationalists seem not to have used their German tank corps at all. Are we missing something? perhaps they just weren't practical for the job of taking bridges and then establishing bridgeheads on the far side? I don't know.

Re Suicide Hill, I decided to leave it there, despite issue raised above, as it does sound better. Until we can come up with another title at least.

Jdorney 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

French and Indian War

 * Hi I'm new here. But I stumbled over the article for the French and Indian War/Seven Years'War/The Great Conquest. Being from the area I thought I might be able to contribute. I left a message on the discussion page. Seems there might of been a slight POV issue there. I would like to dicuss a few things I thought might make the article feature class. I think the original article misses a few key points on the geography of the area and how that might escalate into the conflict that accurred in Europe. Thank you when you get timeDeedee19482 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating maps
I saw the maps you created and would like to know whether you are interested in creating some more?

We have lots of requests for maps showing areas under different political control. One issue that is likely to rise are the Muslim, Indian and African political entities which often lack maps (there are lots of editors lacking the know-how to create maps, but knowing what should be in it. Also territorial changes like during the Second Punic War are only available as external images while they would be essential to show the progress. Quite a good example is the First Punic War, although I don't approve of the style. As long as there is no sufficient group working on maps we are unlikely to create any guidelines. Wandalstouring 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Monte Cassino edit
You've taken out Algeria and Morocco There were in fact 2 Moroccan Divisions (plus the Goumiers = another Division, so three in all) and an Algerian Division at Cassino. This compares with only 1 Free French and 1 New Zealand Division, which continue to be listed. Admittedly both Algeria and Morocco were French colonies at the start of the war but the legal French government was VIchy. I think these two should be reinstated and India added because of the major roles played by 4 and 8 Indian Divisions (although an issue here is that it was colonial India which included modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh) Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm relatively new to all this so I guess my thought is it is fine as long as it is consistent across all Wikipedia articles. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure Philippists and Austracists are helpful terms
Albrecht, you quoted - "Not sure Philippists and Austracists are helpful terms" re:the flags on WOTSS articles. I Agree. I think its simplistic and misleading. Should be removed. Raymond Palmer 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll be proud
Looking through my old talk page archives I ran across our former collaboration on an AfD for Major powers. You'll be happy to see this then Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_%28fourth_nomination%29. I'm just sorry you weren't there to see it unfold. You might consider joining up over here WikiProject Power in international relations to help set things back on course.&mdash;Perceval 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

José de Canterac
Hi there,

I noticed that you added information to José de Canterac. The article is currently unsourced. Could you add a source for your information or even better the article as a whole? Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

World War II Mediation Case
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Teruel
Thank you for your compliment and the fine edits on Battle of Teruel. Pehaps you might look at my article on the Seige of Oviedo, also in the Spanish Civil War. I know it could use some editing. I see Wikipedia needs an article on the Aragon Offenive, and parts of the War in the North including the Seige of Bilbao and maybe the Fall of Asturias and Gijon. When I get some time I plan to work on those.

GenghisTheHun 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

comments on your revision of Battle of Teruel
The addenda on the casualties should be removed. As you know a casualty is more than just killed or wounded. at Teruel, we had missing, captives, and sick for casualties as well.

The flags of the combatants should be restored. The International Brigade was never really under Spanish control nor were the Soviet fliers. On the other side the Germans and Italians were always semi-independent.

GenghisTheHun 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

OK on casualies and maps at Teruel
OK, I'll revert the casualties and leave out the maps. Many thanks.

GenghisTheHun 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1733_Spanish_Dollar.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1733_Spanish_Dollar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Santander
I am working on the War in the North and the battles that occurred during that camapaign. I think this is an area where the German and Italian flags could be added to the forces available as they were very prominent in those campaigns.

GenghisTheHun 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Toulon (1744)
Hello Albrecht. Albrecht, if there was ever a naval battle that was inconclusive it was this one. From a British point of view the battle was shambolic, Lestock was courts martialled for cowardice (he deliberately ignored Mathews signals but was acquited because of his friends in high places), but it was wholly indecisive. I can of course back this up with many sources but I thought I would consult you before making changes. What do you think? Raymond Palmer 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say though, I cannot find a single reference that describes the battle as anything other than a draw or an inconclusive action. I agree that the Spanish claimed victory, but no historian I can find or have read agrees with that!


 * Here’s Mahan’s take:


 * 


 * ‘Admiral de Court was relieved from his command, while the Spanish admiral was decorated by his government with the title of Marquis de la Victoria, a most extraordinary reward for what was at best a drawn fight.’


 * No one was happy with the battle. The Spanish were furious at the French and the British fell out amongst themselves. I do agree the RN suffered most damage, but the only loss of the day was the Spanish Poder taken by Captain Hawke. (although subsequently lost – the RN was so disordered is was either burnt or reclaimed)


 * Surely we can’t decide on victory or defeat based on casualties/damage, too many other factors are in play – we would have to re-assess an awful lot a battles on Wikipedia (starting with Malplaquet) ; )


 * I also don’t recognise the description in the article itself. ‘Defeat of the British Med Fleet’. Ooh no. Darkness brought the whole mess to an end. The user who wrote it seems more at home writing Star Trek articles (nothing wrong with that) but, I think an update is required.


 * I hope you don’t think its petty nationalism on my part (we know where that leads - Catalonian garrison commanders side-by-side with Marlborough, Eugene and Villars in the WOTSS infobox). Any way, I don’t want to cause friction between us. I’ll leave it to you.


 * There's a detailed description of the battle here:
 * Naval Warfare in the Age of Sail: The Evolution of Fighting Tactics, 1650-1815 (Conway's History of Sail) by B. Tunstall, Nicholas Tracy, and Brian Lavery


 * Maybe later in the year we can rewrite it together. Cheers Raymond Palmer 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

on wraths and bolded misspelled caps
Albrecht, what do you think of Maurice suggestion replacing the flags?

Also, I reccomend that you fasten your seatbelt, because my experience tells me that, even though his point is usually correct, Maurice also knows how to use bolded caps (and he spells them right ;) so, if the situation is not fixed with a firm consensus soon, we are about to watch a terrible Clash of Bolded Caps as the last and procrastinated act of the Spanish War of Succession...you'll see ;) Mountolive | Talk 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Albrecht, dare I hope that the Edit War of the Spanish Succesion is over : ) Raymond Palmer 10:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At least until you-know-who returns. Raymond Palmer 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * when you-know-who returns from his Easter college vacations, you guys just don't run away at the sight of the first wrathful bolded mispelled caps and it should be ok ;)
 * besides, if we implement a playground for us Spaniards to play and fight, that maybe could be of help... Mountolive | Talk 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

War of the Spanish succession
Hello Albrecht. What do you think of my suggestion on that talk page to start a Spain section in that article? I am willing to hear your comments either positive or negative, since I deem you as a very valuable editor there. I have asked Raymond as well. Mountolive | Talk 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * please place your comments in the relative talk page, so that there is some debate there. Thanks! Mountolive | Talk 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dos de Mayo Uprising
I see that you have made a number of edits to the Dos de Mayo Uprising article. Would you be interested in quickly citing some sources so that it could appear in the Did you know section, preferably some time on May second? Atropos 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

someone should calm down...
Hi Albrecht.

I have made some comments about our mutual friend here. Please feel free to add your own lot or simply confirm my impressions (if you actually are in agreement with them) in the same place, also, if you know more people who had to suffer/is suffering from his blunt, say...er... "insight" or something, let them know as well.

Because it looks like high time for our mutual friend to receive some scolding from his fellow wikipedians, don't you think?

Mountolive.


 * please keep an eye on Physchim's page. In the meantime, I believe you are more familiar with Onofre's rudeness than myself (sorry about that ;) so you may want to have readily his "greatest hits" ("hit" such as in "punch", I guess...) just in case something comes out of that request I made there, which I really hope, because it is high time for people to take it easy...


 * Mountolive.
 * I suggest that you do a User RFC: in the meantime, he is blocked for 24 hours for removing a civility warning. Physchim62 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Albrecht, did you hear the good news ??? Looks like wikipedia is capable, to a certain extent, of some (very late) regeneration ...

Mountolive.-

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Peninsular War
You have reverted changes to Peninsular War three times. Please read WP:3R --Philip Baird Shearer 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you edit ([Revision as of 21:09, 13 May 2007]) is a revert and was within the last 24 hours. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More eyes the better. You might also consider an RfC. However before we do that I will offer you one last compromise. We can move the text from the section back into the introduction providing it is in a stand alone paragraph not attached to the first paragraph. Personally I don't see where we can put it without it breaking up the flow of the introduction. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "The Peninsular War or Spanish War of Independence" gives them an equal weighting which even a simple google search proves is not true: Just taking a raw number from that (forgetting the quality of the pages and assume the rubbish pages are in proportion) that gives a ratio of 0.2%. To include the "Spanish War of Independence" in the first paragraph when it is so infrequently used is in my opinion not appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * about 457 English pages for "Spanish War of Independence" -wikipedia -- but a look through those pages shows that most of them are one way or another either attached to a Spanish source or in the case of Encyclopaedia Britannica is being restricted to the guerrilla war.
 * about 220,000 English pages for "Peninsular War" -wikipedia

Spanish Irregulars won the Peninsular War
Bizzare statement. Never heard that thought offered. Londo06 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Previous edits from a while back had all the names of the Peninsular War, and from further back it read that they were responsible for French defeat. My apologies, and acknowledgement that it was poor english on my behalf. Londo06 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peninsular War
Well, assuming that it is an alternative name in English-language historiography, you're correct; but, really, the two of you should just sit down and compare notes, rather than reverting back-and-forth without explicitly discussing the issue. I suspect it's probably a misunderstanding of some sort. Kirill Lokshin 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Continued edit-warring is worse than having the article in a state you disagree with for a little while; it's not like he's blanking half the page or something. Quite honestly, this dispute is over a relatively trivial matter; it should never have gotten this far. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Agustin Munoz Grandes.jpg
Hello, Albrecht. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Agustin Munoz Grandes.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Albrecht/images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Emilio Esteban Infantes.JPG
Hello, Albrecht. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Emilio Esteban Infantes.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Albrecht/images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Enrique Lister at the Ebro, 1938.jpg
Hello, Albrecht. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Enrique Lister at the Ebro, 1938.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Albrecht/images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid
Hi! You reverted my edit to change the Star Wars kid article to a redirect to List of Internet phenomena, but you didn't type in any edit summary. Would you please explain why you made this edit? --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help
Some people obviously don't understand what "duplicate" means. I've found that it's usually sufficient to just remove the tag, noting that the images aren't the same. Kirill Lokshin 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campaignbox names
Interesting question. For the most part, I think you'd be able to get away with using the dates to distinguish among them. There are a few that overlap with the others, and would thus need some sort of additional designation (probably a geographical one); but something like Campaignbox Penninsular War (1808-1809) would probably work for the majority of cases.

(In any case, the name of the template is not particularly important, since we can always create redirects from other forms. As long as it's on the main list, people should be able to find it when needed.) Kirill 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of the Gebora
Why, thank you for your kind words! I have noticed your comments on various Peninsular War articles, and was somewhat nervous of my recent work, worried that I would offend some nationalistic sensibilities; your comment makes me inordinately pleased, strangely! Carre 08:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'll be taking Albuera to FAC eventually, but don't feel it quite ready yet.  Even I cringe at some of the writing when I revisit now, but luckily there's a friendly MilHist & LoCE editor who's about to do that for me.  Next I want to write 1st & 2nd Badajoz, and extend the Lines of Torres Vedras so that I can prune Background and Prelude down to summary style.  I will be taking Gebora to FAC in the near future though, I think.
 * By the way, Gates and Esdaile actually make using Oman & Fortescue easier. The latter two write so much detail, it would be difficult to select what needs to be included, but the single volume works identify the critical points, allowing me to pick and chose what I need from the longer accounts.  Seems to be working so far, anyway!  Carre 09:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn your persistence!
Damn you! Tribulation725 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trip Johnson
You reverted some changes to the casualty figures made by User talk:Trip Johnson on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. He seems to be doing this rather a lot on other battles. Can you help me keep an eye on him? Nunquam Dormio 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Walloon Guards
Hey!

You have been wating for almost six months but it is finally made. Seriously. Could you review the article? Writing in english is not my strong point. Regards. --Mundo tarantino (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of La Suffel
With regards to your edit to the Battle of La Suffel, please can you discuss the sources you used for the edit on the talk page. I am particularly interested in where the names of the Coalition commanders come from. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Ponta Delgada
Hello Albrecht. Please see Talk:Battle of Ponta Delgada - you will see my strong reasons for changing the identity of the combatants in the Battle of Ponta Delgada (not to my confusing previous version, though). I hope you see my point and proofs. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Battle of Almansa.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Battle of Almansa.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Almirante_Cervera_(cruiser).jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Almirante_Cervera_(cruiser).jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Map needs edit
Albrecht, I would appreciate if you could look at this map, Image:Shattering isoch.png, that represents the situation at the year 945. Thanks. Provocateur (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Bayonne
I saw that you added a bit of helpful history to my brand-new article on the Battle of Bayonne (1814). It is great to know exactly how the fortress was turned over. However, could you reference where you got this information? I know it's not from the two sources that I cited. One source said it "surrendered" and the other said it was a "failed blockade." Neither explanation was satisfactory, but yours was. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tarragona
I'm OK with moving Siege of Tarragona (1813) to the Catalonia campaignbox. I'd like to do a Battle of Castalla article, but I'll need to get a hold of Oman's classic before that happens. I haven't seen a copy of that one since I was 20 years old at U of Illinois-Urbana and I'm in my 50s now. Djmaschek (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, ...
... but I think I may have screwed up this article [] and/or the way it uses the Anglo-Spanish naval war template. I thought you might want to check out the situation. Sorry. Olorinish (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga edit has been undone
Please see the history page here to see my explanation. Thanks for contributing. If you want to discuss, please reply. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright - you have a good point there. But trust me, for example Djokovic fans would be absolutely frustrated to see "tasted revenge" on a wikipedia article. This is not a blog. It's not supposed to be exciting, or gripping, or like sports journalism. I love Tsonga too, but it's just the way it's done here. I'm going to restore your quote now and we'll see if people take it down. You might want to add a note about it on the talk page of Tsonga just in case, explaining like you did on my page about the whole maiden tour win thing. Because this is an impressive victory, and a milestone in his tennis career and life. Peace out ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually - no. I reread the version of Tsonga's article that had your quote - and when I said I'd restore it now, I thought this quote was for the whole tournament now that he won. This quotation you gave apparently is a response to his win over Djokovic. I think you may be too focused on this "revenge" against Djokovic. It is impressive his wins this tournament yes - beat Djokovic, Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian - all within the top 10 at some point - but it's not notable to talk about his comments to Djokovic. It is good that he has pride in doing well in Bercy, but I don't think it cuts it to qualify for a wikipedia article. I hope that made sense lol. Quotes like that are for http://www.bnpparibasmasters.org/ for example. Peace ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * :( ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Title change discussion for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia
During the deletion discussion for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, you suggested that the name of the article should be changed. I have now started a title change discussion (which can be found here: ) for the article, and I was wondering if you could contribute to it. Thank you very much in advance if you do so. Thanks for reading. BlueVine (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Keep up the good editing work!. I've just uploaded the Bailen's Battle paint in high quality, greets Cosialscastells (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Baylen
Thanks for your note. I'm not a content expert of the same calibre as Carre, unfortunately, but what I saw content-wise looks excellent. I've left some comments though - hope it helps. EyeSerene talk 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Message
Hi there. Thanks for your message on my talk page - will take note. Also, it's good to have you back from self-imposed exile. You are adding some much needed level-headedness to the debate! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon article
Hi, you've added, "Drawing on research by Jacques Bainville, however, a number of scholars have cast doubt on the sincerity of these offers, as the aim of the powers concerned was Napoleon's destruction, and have concluded he shrewdly refused his enemies' traps." I notice from the link you've put to Bainville's article that, he seems to have been Germanophobic and that the research would probably have been done around the 1920s. have you got any more recent reliable English sources for the claim i.e. who are the scholars? thanks, Tom B (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. on the 'many' point, I agree that many do admire his accomplishments, though using many and some appears to be generally frowned on as vague terms. people could accurately use the term many in relation to Stalin and Hitler. 'there are those' does sound guarded, it maybe better to simply remove it. Tom B (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox results guideline
Hi, considering that you took part in this discussion few days ago, please express your opinion in the straw poll recently initiated. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That Ogden image
As you are apparently the uploader of the image I removed from Battle of Carillon, perhaps you can help me defend it in the FAC of Fort Ticonderoga. I am currently somewhat dubious that the image is actually free for WP use.  Magic ♪piano 23:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle_of_Bailén and WikiOblivion
Hey Albrecht,

I only just noticed, trawling through people's talk pages (I'm nosy like that), your request to Eye about a review on the Battle of Bailén. While it's true that I'm hardly active on the wiki any more, I still to check in pretty much every day. So, if you ever want a review on a Peninsular War subject (Peninsular only, not really interested in the wider Napoleonic stuff), or even just help finding a citation, drop me a message. I'm perfectly prepared to bring the entirety of Oman's history, and the relevant parts of Fortescue, and even (spit spit) Napier, if needed :) Carré (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Result
Please keep an eye on Franco-Thai War, I just undid someone's edits with the claim that it was a Thai victory. But in fact, the war ended in the middle. 198.188.96.4 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg
File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ataque británico en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Montgomery's Tavern.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Montgomery&. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Battle of Duck Lake.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Duck Lake.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Combate de Tolón.jpg
File:Combate de Tolón.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Combate de Tolón.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Passchendaele
Are you really sure about your recent alteration of the 'irreplaceable' losses? There's a qualitative as well as a quantitative difference to consider. Ferguson wasn't much of an authority before he was led astray by loaded cheque books.Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS do you really think that attrition is a degeneration? Surely it's the norm?Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your reply on my page to avoid confusion. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Battle of Albuera casualty figure
Hello Albrect. I've restored the previous version because those figures are the ones for the cites given. Your changing the figures but leaving the cites caused a mismatch between the references and the article. However, I understand from your edit summary that you don't place much credence in Oman's figures; if the article doesn't reflect other sources accurately would you mind commenting on the article talk page so we can fix that? Thanks! EyeSerene talk 11:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barfleur
You changed the result here: We’ve already had this conversation; do you really want to do it again? The result given is a compromise; are you wanting to upset that? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mafia-esque? :-)well, OK….
 * I thought we’d resolved this last time round, but if you want to re-visit it, that’s fine. It is not any intent of mine to disparage the French, here.
 * Reading Castex gives an interesting slant on things; I was interested in his comment that this is the naval battle of which the French are most proud (if I’ve got that right). But he is pretty partisan; and in some particulars plain wrong.
 * "Battle of Barfleur" was intended to be a subsidiary page to B+LH; maybe that would be clearer with re-naming it "Action at Barfleur", and adding some main article links. And the B+LH article is a bit thin in the Conclusion section; if there is a difference in the French and the allied point of view, maybe that’s the place to explore it. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Albrecht
Thanks for the nice editing, keep up the good work. Pietje96 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I might need some help?
Hey Albrecht!, I've created a new article and i might need some help with it. The Anglo-Spanish War of 1625 really deserves a section. Free way to check these articles aswell: Blockade_of_Cádiz_(1797) Ferrol Expedition (1800)

Have a very nice day! Pietje96 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Action of 9 August 1780
I've not been able to find a geographic name for it, this is why i have created the article as "Action of 9 August 1780". Spanish sources state that: the convoy was intercepted 60 leagues off cape Saint Vincent, while other authors assert that was captured near the Azores and off Cape Santa Maria. (Cape Santa Maria is pretty close to cape Saint Vincent)

Anyway, if you can find a better encyclopedic name for the article, change it Pietje96 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

When editing the Peninsular War article you recently made the following edit history comments:
 * Reverting my entire edit is extremely unwelcome, resented, and borderline bad faith. Moreover, to my recollection, your views were imposed via edit warring, not discussion or consensus.)
 * (1) "Put in the changes one by one and I'll pick and choose"? Here's another editor who takes himself for a Bonaparte. Where's the plebiscite electing you Emperor of Wikipedia? 2) I _removed_ the DoW)

Accusing another editor of "borderline bad faith" is not appropriate behaviour, but in itself is not enough to warrant a comment, if you had not gone on to breach WP:CIVILITY with your next comment. The next edit that you made contained the comment "Here's another editor who takes himself for a Bonaparte." which is clearly a breach of WP:CIVILITY if you had made that to anyone else, I would have blocked your account. As it is, I will not do so, or ask another admin at WP:ANI to do so, but in future comment on the edits and not the editor.-- PBS (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barfleur, again
We discussed this article earlier.

I’ve expanded the Conclusion section, and moved the page on the Barfleur action, as I'd suggested. You may want to look it over... Xyl 54 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Toulouse
I noticed that you have tirelessly scrubbed the Battle of Toulouse (1814) article of various acts of vandalism. On 20 November 2009 someone (IP address only) changed the Results section significantly, claiming that the British never captured Toulouse, though my sources say they did. I need to go back and replace cited material that was removed by this miscreant. How does one mark a paragraph as "challenged" and "no source"? I've looked in Help for the proper syntax, but it's somewhat confusing. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer
Thanks for your fixing the title, and what do you think about the article? BLUE DOG TN 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism from the user ChristiaandeWet
Hello, I'm new in the Wikipedia. I noted that user:ChristiaandeWet is deliberately changing results of battles in favour of the British side ignoring any reference. I don't know what to do to stop him. Can you helP me?--ElBufon (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Somme
Regards Albrecht, I noticed your last edit. You're ignoring the last 25 years of research and historiography as well as John Terraine's championing since the 1960s if you think that the consensus about the battle is that it was a fiasco. The English literature version of the battle emphasises the cost to the British and the English history version sees it as one of the battles in 1916 which damaged the German army beyond repair and left its strategy to win the war in tatters. Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"#I do not claim fiasco as the current "historical consensus," but merely as a dominant intepretation globally (i.e. 1917-2010)." What's the difference between a consensus and a dominant interpretation??? ;O).


 * The Germans withdrew divisions from France because of the Brusilov Offensive as well as the Romanian gig. This was after the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians had stripped the Eastern Front in late 1915 on the assumption that the Russians were finished as an offensive force. They didn't have much choice and the effect on the German defence on the Somme was dire. The attempt to squeeze Germany on three fronts in 1916 misfired because of the Verdun campaign but what the Entente achieved left the Germans hanging on by their fingernails. You may see (with a substantial number of writers) the German withdrawal from the Somme in 1917 as unconnected to the inability of the German army to withstand a renewal of the inexorable battering it got in 1916, when the weather abated but British operations in the Ancre valley in early 1917 forced the Germans to retreat before the Hindenburg Line was complete. Tactically the British army went from disaster on 2/3 of the attack front on the first day to the tactical sophistication of the contemporary French army (at least) by the end of the year. Huge German losses and the crisis of September-October 1916 followed. The arrival of the sort of equipment the army needed in early 1917 allowed the British army to match the German army by the time of Arras, hence the steady change in the balance of attrition from mid-1916 continued. 'Through German Eyes: The British and the Somme 1916' by Christopher Duffy uses contemporary German sources to arrive at similar conclusions. With 'German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich Von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870-1916' by Robert T. Foley does the same for strategy and operations. I'd be interested in what you make of them.Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Albrecht. I think you make a good argument for your point of view, it's just that I disagree with it. I don't agree though that there are 70 years' worth of scholarship following the pessimist view. I suggest that this originated with the disillusion of the late 20s and Lloyd-George's scurrilous memoirs. John Terraine began to publicise a historical revison to what he saw (reasonably) as a polemical view of the Somme in particular and the Great War in general. He used plenty of primary sources as can be seen in 'The Educated Soldier' and the TradBBC 'The Great War'. I think the point about using divisions from the Somme is interesting. The Official History points out that they had been badly mauled on the Somme first. Using burnt out divisions anywhere was a sign of how overstretched the Germans became in the last quarter of 1916. Keith-264 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what adds to uncertainty it the fact (i.e. beyond argument) that the victory wasn't the one intended - no breakthrough was obtained (were there any in this war? I thought that the Brusilov Offensive might qualify but having just read T Dowling's book it's clear that the Austro-Germans lost heavily but managed to retreat and re-make a front line each time the Russians had to pause. I bet it's the same for Caporetto). It was a victory by default and its strategic effect was as much to do with what didn't happen as what did. I sometimes wonder if Wiki material on the World Wars is as surprising to our readers as The GW series was to viewers in the early 60s? There's certainly a difference between historical scholarship and history writing. That said, orthodoxies and fashions come and go. I think that the 'revisions' of the last 30 years or so have been in one direction so I doubt they will be confounded. They look to me to be part of the historicisation of the war. You never know though;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

we learned on the normandy articles, when u outnumber the germans than every battle in which a german was killed is a decisive victory, dont forget this albrecht :-D Blablaaa (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging vs blanking/redirecting
If Canada under British Imperial control redirects anywhere it should be to British colonization of the Americas, which has similar content. I'm tempted to reverse the British North America redirect but thought I'd take it up with you here; as it's very clear you did not merge the contents of the article, only redirected it....there's issues with the BNA page, too, as the infobox used "British Colony" as if it weren't a collection of colonies AND OTHER CLAIMS, and if it were singular. I'm coming at this from a British Columbian perspective, and on most national-level history pages while I've tried to improve "Western and Pacific" content there's still a lot of shortfall built around assumptions from the Central Canadian view/experience; this is as true on the BNA page as it is on the colonization page as it is on the imperial control page. And yes, "imperial control" is more than bit awkward, and "control" is scarcely the word to use for the tenuous existence of the NWC and HBC in the West, particularly on the Coast and it's also completely inapt for the state of affairs in the Columbia District/Oregon Country, the legal terms of which explicitly excluded the word or concept of "control"....."colonization" I can deal with so long as it's understood as a term it means more than colonies per se. And there is a series of "colonization" articles with that title format. "British North America" did not in period usage really include Rupert's Land and certainly not the Columbia Department....and its associations with Canada as such (in its post-1867 meaning) by dint of the title of the British North America are inescapable...Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read the edit history before making allegations; and if you read me closely above you'll see I chose NOT to revert your merge; User:BilCat did that, for the same reasons I object to it; there's tons of content on that page that has nothing to do with what's on British North America. "Merge" means "integrate material", not blank one page and direct it to another with less content....and as noted, again, "British North America" as a term did not really include areas west of teh Lakes until after 1867 (when Rupert's Land was transferred from the HBC to the Colony of Canada).Skookum1 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
I think that this guy is a troll and I have reverted the box back to where it was with 1 change. Either he cares a great deal about all things Russian or he likes typing for a living but I am done with the fellow. Feel free to take it up with him but I am out.Tirronan (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about the breaks didn't realise about browser settings. Thanks for that.Bruich talk, 19:05, 27 July 2010 (GMT)

Removed Kelly reference
Hello! The section in the article The Library of Babel you had removed because of the prominant and repeated references to Kelly's book has been revised and readded. I was the one who had originally added this information, and I feel that I should explain my reasons for what could be mistaken for an author attempting to self promote. I'm not Kelly, by the way, though that just makes it sound like I am Kelly. -_-*

I had reciently been in a bit of a tiff with a particularly annoying Wikilawyer who had complained about my apparently inadequate citation. This resulted in the next article I edited being somewhat...overzealously...cited. I hadn't come back to look at the page in some time, and I agree that in my ire I had made a bit of an overdo of the whole thing. I have just compleated a rewrite of the section which is much less blatently cited, but still covers the same info, and includes Kelly's book as a footnote reference. The info covered in this section is important to the article, and Kelly's book is the only place I have ever seen an in depth analysis of these particular facets of the Library.

I just wanted to inform you on the origins of this particular edit and dispell talk of Kelly being a self-promoter. -- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
I'm pushing to get this article completed in the next month and I am requesting your help if you would like? I'm hoping to get the Battle of Borodino to GA status, and I confess given the depth and breath of deceptive historiography of this battle it is more than a handful. I can use the help.Tirronan (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Franco-Thai War
Again, someone rewrited the outcome of the war. Please check. Wibach (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

General Nansouty A-Class Review
Hello Albrecht! I've put up the article about General Nansouty for A-Class Review here. Your review would be much appreciated. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

answer
Hello, Albrecht, how are you? :).

Of all the sources i've seen, i still haven't found how was this action called or "typographically" described. Combate de las Azores might be a decent one... Spanish writers refer to this engagement as the "Capture of the English convoy near the Azores" but not as combat of the azores (u must consider that that's a commemorative plaque, and it would be a bit stupid to describe on a spanish plaque an engagement as "action of 9 august". Let me emphasize that this article deserves more relevance than it actually has. English-speaking authors such as David Syrett call this a "major defeat" The Royal Navy in European waters during the American Revolutionary War p.136 while spanish sources and some english assert that this action crippled the possible offensives that the British West India garrisons could have done in the Caribbean theatre. R. Gardiner and other british authors wrote that this "Combat" was the heaviest commercial blow ever received by Britain since the Battle of Lagos (1693). This engagement didn't go un-noticed by the Spanish or French, but for English-speaking countries it seems more than obscure and largely forgotten.

I hope this answers your question, have a good day. Pietje96 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Why is the article titled José de Urbina y Urbina, 3rd conde de Cartaojal when it states the man's name was Tomás de Morla y Pacheco? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Lille (1708)
You made an edit Revision as of 17:46, 15 May 2010 to the article Siege of Lille (1708), but unfortunately although you included a short citation "Childs (1982), p. 133" you forgot to add the full reference to the general references section. If you can remember the details of the book please could you add them? -- PBS (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Treaty of Ryswick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newfoundland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hundred Days
A question is being asked about this contribution that you made back in November 2009, perhaps you would like to answer it see talk:Hundred Days -- PBS (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition of decisive battle.
For your information.

"Instead of the traditional concept of a war won quickly by means of one or two "decisive" battles that annihilated the enemy's armed forces, thereby forcing the enemy to accept any peace terms, there now arose a vision, a nightmare to most, of a protracted war." Foley, R.T. German Strategy and the Path to Verdun (2007) p.5.Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Campaign Battle of Coamo
Mr. Albrecht, on your Wiki page of “Puerto Rican Campaign Battle of Coamo” you state that; A total of 248 infantry men and 42 members of the cavalry formed the battalions under the command of Lt. Col. Rafael Martínez Illescas, the same person who was in charge of the Ponce garrison. I would like to clarify that Spanish Officer Rafael Martinez Illescas was at the time of his death a Spanish Commander, one rank below that of Lt. Col as you state. I would have done the edit myself but to no avail ever since Wikipedia co-owner “Marine 69-71” blocked the page. Just a look to the Spanish ranks today will clarify the info; commanders have one eight pointed star while Lieutenant Colonel (Teniente Coronel) has two.

In terrorem fideo defenso II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.237.38 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
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) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
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) 09:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
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) 13:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
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) 07:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
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) 03:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)