User talk:Auntieruth55/Archive 4

NowCommons: File:1834customstarrifs.jpg
File:1834customstarrifs.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1834customstarrifs.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) 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your beautiful article
Auntie Ruth,

Last August, you asked me for my vote of support on the German Unification's FA nomination. I first went to the article, read it & brought some minor changes. A few days later, when I tried to vote, I discovered that I was too late: the vote had already taken place, but the good news was that you had won the FA nomination for your beautiful article. So, first, I apologise for arriving too late for the vote and, second, I congratulate you for such a beautiful article. Félicitations! Frania W. (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Frania. As you could see from the archive, there were a considerable number of suggestions, too. It's a much better article because of them. :)  Thanks for your comments and your thoughtfulness. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Auntie Ruth, I plan on reading the article again: it is one of the best articles in en:wiki. (Some are total trivia compared to it!) What's coming next? Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm working on Hermann Detzner, and am hoping to get that through the A review, and then to FAC in the next week or so.  After that, I'll focus on German Mediatization, Uberlingen and then fill in the red links (battles) of the Cologne War.  Cologne war is written and at GA, but no one seems interested in doing the battles.  Not my strength, but I'll get some start class articles done on them, and try to get CW into FA.Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Auntie Ruth, as we say in French "Vous avez du pain sur la planche!" By the way, all our little leprechauns are back from holiday and, although they are supposed to be studying hard, they do spend a lot of time on Wikipedia.  We'll have to keep them out of trouble...  À bientôt.  Frania W. (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unification of Germany
Well done! A great article! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks very much. I appreciate your comments, and the comments of everyone else who helped.  I'm proud of my first adoption. ;)   Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I was away from the Internet when it was promoted; I am glad it finally made it. Well done for resubmitting!  JN 466  21:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks...I appreciate all your help as well. I've noticed the Moelders is not promoted (yet?). I've gone through Nowatny, too.  It needs more work, but this was what I could do today. I'll go back to it tomorrow. I'm still waiting to hear about the military project action on Hermann Detzner  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Mölders is concerned, there are only our two supports right now. This may not be enough, even though there are no opposes any more. It just needs more eyes (or ayes) I guess.  JN 466  22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it had a bit of work to do before it was nominated, so perhaps that has discouraged some. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 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)

Walter Nowotny
Hey thanks for taking a look. No, I deem the article quite complete given the sources I have. I have a special interest in controversial characters. Currently I am researching on Helmut Lent. His father and brother, both of them were priests, were under strong surveillance by the Gestapo for reading the Mölders letter in public. That triggered me to find out what the Mölders letter actually was. There is a section in the Hans-Joachim Marseille article called rumours. Some historians link this episode to the Mölders letter as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you might have an article on these letters. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A fan?
Nice to know I have a fan. I tend to write new articles containing everything I can discover about a given ace. I give sources for it all. If you don't find something, it's because I couldn't find that something. I include info boxes. I am struggling to master graphics, so that is still hit or miss.

I think the best bio I have read yet about a World War I fighter ace is Albert Ball. Of course, I am biased. While I did not originate the article, I did edit it heavily. I believe it should be considered for GA or A Class, but have been discouraged from learning to submit it as such for reasons that are unclear to me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at Albert Ball. Have you thought about asking for an A level review at the Military History Project?  That would give you a sense of whether or not you could/should proceed to FAC with it.  Just a thought.  I have an article there now, Hermann Detzner, waiting for the military types to decide.  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I considered it, but was discouraged from trying, and I am uncertain of assessment procedures above B Class. Georgejdorner (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * George, I don't know if you noticed this comment/advice from me on Milhist Assessement Requests a while back, but the offer to collaborate still stands. (CCed on George's talk page.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Hotel Deutscher Hof in Herbertshoehe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hotel Deutscher Hof in Herbertshoehe.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Relief Papua Neuguinea1918 w Sattelberg.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Relief Papua Neuguinea1918 w Sattelberg.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Article that could interest you
Auntie Ruth, do you read French?


 * http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/09/12/01003-20090912ARTFIG00200-mitterrand-et-les-mauvais-allemands-.php

not very conveniently. ;) I'll take a look, though.  R

Aufaurwiedervoir! Frania W. (talk) 18:00, 12 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) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Werner Moelders FAC
I'm concerned Werner Mölders won't make it through FAC. It only has two reviews (supports), mine and JN, and there were initially a lot of problems with it. Mr. Bee is not a native English speaker, but the article is in good shape now. I don't know where else to post to get the project people on top of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've posted notices about this on the Milhist talk page and relevant talk pages, so hopefully it will now attract more interest.  Roger Davies  talk 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines and wondering what to do to get more eyes over the article. Thanks to you both for taking the initiative!  JN 466  20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port
Thankyou very much for your comments and support at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that's great to hear! The star is well-deserved. It was a fine article.  I thought the whole set of articles you've done on the Pacific actions have been very interesting.  Have you read the one I'm working on (a WWI hold out in New Guinea), Hermann Detzner?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had indeed seen that article, and thought it was very interesting. I hope to comment on its FAC soon. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!
Just wanted to say: Nice work on the articles you have created/edited. :) Omegastar (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've enjoyed doing the Cologne Wars and associated articles--have found lots of useful info on the Dutch encyclopedia....not that my Dutch is good, but I manage.  Interested in working on the Cologne War battles with me?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, i would, but i am not sure what i can do. I searched for dutch sources on the war, but i couldnt find anything apart from some info on Gebhard Truchsses that you already covered. I did find and, if you hadnt already found those :) Omegastar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * there are sources on the battle that have red links, but they are in German. How's your German? I'd really like it if someone could take over a couple of those.  OR, how are you at making maps?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i dont have any experience at making maps. I know basic german, and theres alot of similarity between the Dutch and German languages, so combined with google translator i can translate simple german pretty easily. Omegastar (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * if you're willing to give it a try, take a look here Cologne War and see if you can pull together something on one of the early battles, for example, the first siege of Bonn or Godesburg ? I'm at least intermediate German (probably  Hochstufe) and I can manage it, plus most of the Dutch I run into.  Or if you'd like, something on the "Belgian" Claude de Berlaymount, Haultpenne.  There may be something in Dutch on him, but I sure can't find it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, i cannot access that book. I think it has to do with copyright laws in europe limiting access to alot of google books. I did find information on Claude de Berlaymont, i posted what i found in my sandbox User:Omegastar/Sandbox, and ill make an article out of it. Omegastar (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. I like.  Well, with fixed grammar and some context, etc.  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulaions
Thanks, but thanks to you as well. I enjoyed working with you on this article and I appreciate you're effort that helped make this possible. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. So glad this nomination did not in the end fail for lack of reviewers, as it seemed in danger of doing a few days ago.  JN  466  23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gott sei dank!! we make a good team.;)  Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:58, 16 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)

Contest Dept
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4
I am trying to address your concerns and await further feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one edit. Is there anything else I can do to get your support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please copyedit the article
February 2009 tornado outbreak. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence FAC
I noticed that you made a comment, but could you look at the page check over it as a whole disconnected from what is being discussed at the FAC page? I would like some other reviewers to check for clarity. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On Assonance - Walter Jackson Bate, in his linguistic analysis, argues that Keats, more than any other writer, relies on assonance. He also argues that more than any other writer, Keats intended the assonance throughout his poetry. Indolence is one of a handful examples that show this and the use more than any other poem (and an example is given of it).
 * "so why is there an entire article devoted to this" - This is still a highly anthologized and highly notable poem.
 * "Is he actually implying here, though that the writing of poetry is an act of indolence? " - Andrew Motion might help explain this - "he suggests that [Ode on Indolence] clarifies the personal drama which is transfigured in his other odes. He was right to do so. 'Indolence' is the only one of the group to centre on his poetic self, and the only one to use an image he had created inwardly rather than discovered in the external world." So, it would seem that the answer is a kind of "yes". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "I have the impression that this is a paper you wrote for the uni that you have converted to an encyclopedia article, is this right?" - I only half wrote it, Mrathel wrote the other half. No, I have never written an article, an essay, or anything else on the poem. You can see my talk page for a series of sets of poems that I have created articles for. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In your rewrite, you left a section uncited. Do you know what source it came from? - "This is a fundamental preoccupation of the Romantics, who believed the way to reconcile man and nature was through this soul development, education—the combination of experience and contemplation—and that only this process, not the rationality of the previous century, would bring about true Enlightenment." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Romanticism."            Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Sep. 2009

it seems to me that an article that needs fixing is Romantic poets. It's in poor shape. Needs an expert. The article on Ode probably needs additional information, description of analytical points, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Britannica is a really bad source because it is not that great in terms of criticism and is a tertiary source. I'll see if I can find an approximate match so the passage will be cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be good. I can find a reference in one of myGerman books, if you don't, but taht would be in German...also not good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it for now until we can get a source. Someone might bring it up at FAC for not having a source. I have a few books that say the same thing. It might take me a while to find something (later tonight or tomorrow morning). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Use the EB source. It's not criticism, it's simply a statement of broad ideological/philosophical ideas of Romantic movement.  This sourcing stuff gets absurd.  There are some things that can be sourced back to an encyclopedia, or we can certainly find another one.  but to leave it out undermines the paragraph's explanation of Romanticism-Keats-the Ode.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it back in under a book that analyzes the trends between Enlightenment and Romantic poetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After I work on Leigh Hunt and Robert Southey (I am about to work on both), then I can fill out information British Romanticism and the rest. That would be key to completing a page on Romanticism as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The why templates were inappropriate - the specific rationales behind none of the various critics agreeing is not of importance, especially when there are hundreds of arguments and all of them say there is no definite way to know. It is simply enough to demonstrate that there are multiple answers. They are directly cited, so that is another reason why the why template doesn't apply, because: "This tag is used to mark possible Weasel Words." WP:Weasel is very specific. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

okay, two things: first, your abrupt dismissal of my possibly inappropriate use of the template  is one of the reasons why people get so annoyed with you. Obviously, I could have used, not , however these instructions say nothing about using the template only for weasel words. Second, and more importantly, your argument (above) is not clear from what you've written. In a couple of the case you cite, you offer why the author reaches the conclusion he does. In another case, you don't cite it. How about: '' As a one of the primary Romantic poets, Robert Keats has been the subject of hundreds of studies, example of which are listed below; the Odes in particular have been examined from many perspectives to determine the order in which they were written, and arguments can be made supporting almost any conceivable sequence. In The Consecrated Urn, Bernard Blackstone observes that "Indolence" has been variously thought the first, second, and final of the five 1819 odes.[7] Biographer Robert Gittings suggests “Indolence” was written on 4 May 1819, based upon Keats's report about the weather during the ode’s creation.[8] Douglas Bush insists it was written after "Nightingale", "Grecian Urn", and "Melancholy" because .....[6] Based on his examination of the stanza forms, Keats biographer, Andrew Motion, thinks the ode was written after "Psyche" and "Nightingale", although he admits there is no way to be precise about the dates. Nevertheless, he argues that "Indolence" was probably composed last because....[9] Remember, I'm trying to help you get this through, not get in your way. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)''
 * His name is John Keats. Not Robert. Also, none of those templates are appropriate. Your suggested rewrite would add in a lot of problems in addition. Furthermore, the fact that you say that Motion needs to be explained when his rationale is already given is a little troubling. No one else had any difficulty with it. Not even Fowler mentioned something. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edward I again
Hi, I tried to address your issues on Edward I of England, but I forgot to ping you. Care to have another look? Lampman (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. I tweaked a few sections. Remaining problems (mostly prose, wordiness, indirectness, etc.) can be smoothed out when you go to the A review.  You should plan to take this to FA, I hope? Would you like to add this to the GA lists appropriately?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing the article! I've lately been a bit disillusioned by the FA system, but it's an important article, so I might give it a shot. I'll make some further improvements, and run it through a PR or two. Not sure what you mean by "A review", am I missing something? As far as I know, there's no formal review process for giving an article A status? Lampman (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, the military history project has a very helpful A review. try that one first, and be sure to let me know when you do.....  I'll give you a hand.  Definitely do a PR first, though.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Detzner nominated as FAC
Hermann Detzner is a featured article candidate. Care to stop at the FAC page and leave comments, objects or support? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Auntie Ruth, although I am going on a "semi-retired" mode for a while (too much to do in real life), I will go to Hermann Detzner & leave a note at the FAC page.  Please let me know when final vote is taking place so that I do not miss it as I did for the Unification of Germany.
 * Auf Wiedersehen! Frania W. (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Looks interesting! Aptery  gial  01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll get round to it later on.  JN 466  20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten, and I should be able to take a look this weekend. I had a quick scan, and to be honest I'm surprised this kind of stuff wasn't in my school curriculum... :) Aptery  gial  13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * oh yeahhhh. School curriculum=nationalist indoctrination.  ;)  Ruth (<---teacher)  15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * well, that explains the goose-stepping we had to do... Aptery  gial  00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Voting time? Comments seem to be dealt with. I'd appreciate support (or oppose)! Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Auntie Ruth, this is what I left:
 * Giving a yes vote in support of article which I read twice; however, because of the busy-ness in my life right now, I cannot leave a lengthy comment. Hope this suffices, mit  viel Glück, Frania W. (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  P.S.  Auntie Ruth, if I am voting at the wrong place, please put right link at my talk page. FW


 * here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hermann_Detzner/archive1#Hermann_Detzner

I spent a couple of hours at my state library today trying to find out Klink and Konrad's first names. Although I gave it a good look, three obstacles stood in my way: it was in German, there was no index, and it was in a bizarre gothic font. So... no go. I've been unable to locate the English version in any library close to me, so that's about all I can do. Thanks, though, for getting me to the library, it forced me to work on some stuff I've been needing to look at. :) Aptery  gial  13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't surprise me. I remembered it was in the Gothic font. Typical for books printed in the interwar years.  I think Klink's first name is Hans, but I'm not sure about Konrad. I found Hans Klink on passenger lists arriving and departing at the correct times.  It's not that important.  If I get the book again, I'll fill it in. If not, perhaps someone else will.  The joy of Wikipedia!  Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't that important. But I do like to remove all loose ends. I find it interesting that German books used Gothic font in the interwar years. Seems like nationalism in font, a reaction to the more American and British leanings of German youth in the 1920s, but done in a strange medium (I'm rambling, but I find this interesting). Aptery  gial  00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to thank you again for helping out with reviewing Oklahoma City bombing, I was so glad when it passed. If you're interested, I was wondering if you would be willing to copyedit the film article Tropic Thunder. I've been working on it for over a year and would like to take it to FAC in the next few weeks after a few other editors have taken a look. If if you can't or aren't interested, no worries. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could take a look, but I won't have more than an hour to give to it later this week. Will that meet your needs?  I have an article at FAC, and another on the road there. Plus my dissertation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you can help with is fine. I'd appreciate any help you can provide, but if you're busy don't worry about it. Best wishes for your current projects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation required
Please do not remove without replacing with a citation like you did in your edit of Scharnhorst class battleship on 19:48, 26 September 2009. There is no citation for the claim that the Royal Navy in World War II classified these ships as battlecruisers. There is a citation for the Royal Navy classifying them as battleships after the war, which is the 1961 staff history. By removing the citation required tag, you made it look as if the staff history reference also justified the claim that they had earlier been classified as battlecruisers, which the staff history certainly does not.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request to Parsecboy to deal with your issues on this article. I expect he will deal with it. It is passed to GA regardless, but I don't think will go further until this issue is resolved.  Thanks for letting me know.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Matu
Ruth, I left you a note on the Detzner talk page ... when you've got a mo. Cheers, -- JN 466  18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) ... and congratulations! :)  JN 466  23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner
Thanks for all your helpful suggestions regarding Simon B. Buckner. I think I have addressed them all, except where noted on the FAC page. If you have further suggestions, please leave them at the FAC page. If not, I hope you will consider adding your support for its promotion to FA. I notice it's near the bottom of the list of FA noms with 3 supports (counting the nominator) and no opposes. I'd really hate to have to restart this process for want of one "support". Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support given

 * I'm happy to do that. It's a terrific article.  I've made a couple of small tweaks, really really small, and I hope you don't mind.  I have one left, which is not so small, however, but will strengthen your first sentence.  Simon Bolivar Buckner (April 1, 1823 – January 8, 1914) was a soldier who fought in the United States Army in the Mexican–American War and in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War and later served as the thirtieth governor of Kentucky.  ?? what do you think?  Support is posted on the proper page, and I've struck most of my comments.    NICE JOB!!!  It's a pleasure to work with someone as cooperative and thoughtful as you are.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding your support. I made the change you suggest above, but also reverted one of your changes with regard to the Tate scandal. It is important that Buckner ordered the audit and that it had been neglected for years. For many years after the war, Bourbon Democrats swept Kentucky's state offices almost by default. Tate&mdash;who had been re-elected for the previous 20 years&mdash;was trusted implicitly, hence, the audit was neglected. Buckner's ordering the audit showed that he was not a total slave of the party establishment, and the revelation of Tate's embezzlement and subsequent defalcation undermined the de facto faith Kentuckians had shown in the Democratic Party and contributed to the election of William O. Bradley, the state's first Republican governor, in 1895. It also had repercussions in the state constitutional convention of 1891. (I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know, but since I've been doing Kentucky governor articles for a few years now, I thought I'd throw it in! :) )
 * Anyway, thanks again for the review and the support. I hope you'll be looking for my FA nomination of J. C. W. Beckham after I return from my upcoming vacation. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your emphatic statement at the FAC page. I have to admit being pretty disheartened when I saw that "oppose" this morning, especially one that appeared to require my finding and reading another 400 page book! Still, looks like it's been resolved. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, you should throw that in. It gives a clearer idea of him. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I wrote a draft for a new WP GER newsletter. Can you ce and add your topics eventually, please? A general discussion is here. Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Low German house and Lüneburg Heath Upgraded to B Class
Auntieruth55, I was delighted to see that you had rated the articles on the Low German house and the Lüneburg Heath a B grade. I have translated around 1,000 articles to date, but these are the first ones to be rated as B's, although there are probably half a dozen more candidates. All the more satisfying to have them rated by someone who knows her stuff! My next aspiration is to see if I can raise one or two to GA status... Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * they are good, no problem with them. I do think the LGH needs some expert attention from the architects.  Luneburg Heath has some prose issues to deal with before I'd pass it at GA.  But you're doing well!  :)  Ruth  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Lent
Hi, yes thanks that is a nice picture. Also thanks for tweaking my English. Lent mostly flew the Me 110 in combat. If I had to chose, I probably would chose a picture of a Me 110 over a Ju 88 however. Regarding your concern of the List of KC recipients review; I posted a question on the project talk page. So far no feedback! As I tried to express on the talk page, it seems that the Waffen-SS had the highest percentage of Knight's Cross recipients who can’t prove that they received the award (evidence doesn't exist, or only circumstantial evidence exists). This I find somewhat interesting in comparison to the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe for instance. You rightly ask why we have these lists on Wikipedia. Since the KC is an obsolete German Award not much emphasis (not to say none) by German officials is placed on establishing credibility for those who received and those who claim to have received the award. In the past the Association of Knight's Cross recipient established a list of KC recipients. Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book is the best reference of the AKCR listings. Whenever you read a number of 7,318 people received the award it is derived from this list (this also pertains to the higher grades of the award). I find it very encyclopaedic to help establish credibility and insight into this issue (who did and who claimed). To me it is a bit like the issue with Mölders. It is a bit schizophrenic how we Germans treat our soldiers and military history of the past. I hope this helps understand my motivation. Thanks again MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS
Thanks for your comments. What I would like to know is whether you think I should bring this article to A-class review or not? Please look at the article from this perspective. I don't want to post and then receive all kinds of feedback that I could deal within the peer review. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * would you be planning on taking it to FA? because I'm not sure it will fly there.  It's hard to find info, unless you actually know what the man's award was, which makes it cumbersome to use, although most Lists are.  It seems the issue is its usability.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet. The Military History Project has a number of lists that went to FLC and they are of similar structure. By the way I have started expanding the Helmut Lent article. In way he shares a similar fate and history as Mölders did. You may want to stop by once in a while and help me out. I would appreciate this. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will certainly help with Lent, if you let me know when you want some help, and on what part of it....Re the list: just because a list is of similar structure doesn't mean it is usable.  These are really big lists, at least the lower you get on the food chain.  So I guess I'm not sure of the point, and perhaps bringing it up at the project talk page would be a good thing to do, to get some other input.  The list itself looks great, it's detailed, organized, consistent, and all the things one wants in a list; it is, however, hard to use because of the nature of a list.  So in my mind it comes down to the purpose of the list.  Is it a list for the sake of a list?  Oh look, we have a list on wikipedia of all the Knights cross recipients in the Waffen SS!  Or is it a list that will assist people in understanding the levels of the award, who received it, why, when, etc.  Oh look, Wikipedia English has a list of the Knights cross recipients of the Waffen SS and it shows me that the men who received it were on the eastern front, a lot of them died in action, or it's helpful in allow me to understand what the award was, and what kind of actions it honored...Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through Lent. I put the "under construction notice" at the top of the article, so that others will know you're working on it (we're working on it). Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the article for FLC review now since I received so little feedback beyond what you have contributed. Let's see how it goes. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you did complete the process to promote an article to GA on Talk:Action of 18 October 1806 as the talk page still lists the article as under review. Please rectify this error and try to pay more attention next time. -MBK004 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. BencherliteTalk 05:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I completed the process, as you said, then what is this about? And what did Bencherlite have to do? You've changed the GA process AGAIN and it is still very confusing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, that was a very inopportune typo, the process was not completed, and yes the process itself did change recently, of which the instructions are clearly stated on the nomination page. As for what Bencherlite did, just take a look at the diff: -MBK004 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lewis McGee GAN
Hi Auntieruth55. Thank you very much for your review of Lewis McGee for Good Article status, and the tweaks and typos you fixed in the article. Your efforts are much appreciated. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope you'll have time to take a look at some of the articles I have in the GA process. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be able to review one of your articles either later on today, or tomorrow. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry that it took so long, Auntieruth55, but I have finally completed a review of Battle of Stockach (1799). I am placing it on hold pending some issuse I have outlined on the review page, but I don't think they should take terribly long to fix. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. We all have life beyond wikipedia.  I've made most of the changes you've suggested, and a few more.  I don't like doing citations the other way. I prefer them the way I have them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have done an excellent job so far. Well done! I think there are just one or two more things left to do, or reply to, so its just about there. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think just the geographic coordinates issue is left. Though, the caption on the map image also displays an inconsistent date format with thre rest of the article ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just took out the coordinates, and I'll fix the date right now.
 * Well, I'm satisfied, so its a pass. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for your comments. Always helps to have another pair of eyes on these things!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation format
It is a question of personal preference, and I have placed a corresponding comment in the review. It should not affect assessment. Having said that, in articles on contentious topics that see lots of edits from many different editors and use many different sources, it makes sense to place references after each sentence. The reason: if someone later inserts a sentence based on a different source in the middle of the paragraph, the beginning of the paragraph gets separated from the reference that backed it up. (Happens all too often, unfortunately, and it can then be a real pain to sort out where stuff came from. Example here in this FA – took me the best part of an hour to track the original edit and the originally cited source down.)

With something like the Cologne War, tempers are likely to have cooled somewhat. ;) It will probably be a more stable article and thus is as good an article as any for using the sparser referencing method that you prefer. It is really up to you.

By the way, I had a look for sources the other day but very little is available in google books or elsewhere online. I can find a few references that Godesberg went boom in a big way, but nothing detailed enough for basing an article on. Best, -- JN 466  17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for your insight. I agree on the contentious topics, and since it took this many years for the article to be written for wikipedia, and very little has been written about it in the 20th century (no monographs), I doubt there will be a lot of contribution to the article, generally.
 * Re Godesburg, the best source is probably Hennes, Johann Heinrich (1878). Der Kampf um das Erzstift Köln zur Zeit der Kurfürsten. Köln: DuMont-Schauberg. It's online, at least it is for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one of the books I tried to find; I can only get the snippet view in google books. You may have access to something better from your set-up. -- JN 466  17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can save it in pdf format and email to you, zipped? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Inner German border
I have nominated Inner German border as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your earlier feedback on the article - please feel free to comment at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 on its suitability as a potential featured article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

File:FuerstBismarck1890.jpg
I had to delete this because the watermark is not in the public domian and the site the image comes from unfortunat doesn't release it's stuff under free enough conditions for wikipedia.©Geni 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Aaron Westervelt
In March 2009 I completely rewrote the above mentioned article about this former mayor of New York City. In May you suggested, that I should divide a longish quote into subsections. As Im in very bad health, I was not able to do this until now. But I finally would like to adopt your proposal. You also asked me to indicate what Westervelt did based on his political position. And there I have a problem. The point is, Im more or less housebound because of my bad physical condition. So all I can use for my research is the internet and my own home-library (I have lots of books). I spent approx. 150 hours of research and writing to finish this article. It really (!!) was very, very difficult to find informations about Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I'ld say, I found everything, that can be found in the internet and in the books I have. Unfortunately I couldnt find enough reliable informations about the things Westervelt did based on his position (in the available sources). It would be necessary to visit archives in the USA and to continue the research there (newspapers, other books, historical documents). The point is... even if I would be healthy, I couldnt do that, because Im Swiss, and I live in a small swiss village... so I have no access to further information. I was hoping, that probably some American could continue the research and complete the article. Now... what I can do, is to split the longish quote, but unfortunately thats all I can do at the moment. Since I uploaded the new article, I was actually hoping, that there would be a chance to sugest this article for GA one day. But I knew, I would need the help of other users to reach that goal. The reason: my mother tongue is swissgerman, and therefore of course the article was not written in perfect english. Since then, several people made a copy-editing, and there was also a peer review. Im not sure if the article now has a chance to be nominated for GA. What do you think? By the way: I saw, that you have good knowledge of the German language... where did you learn it? With kind regards  Rectilinium  '♥' 13:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Ostrach

 * Nice work. I just read through that whole thing and quite enjoyed it. Wikipedia needs more writers like you. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze


The article Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not clear how this person is notable. Lacks 3rd party references demonstrating any notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Auntieruth. I actually opened your user talk page because of something else, but I was so surprised to read this message (and the really strange explainations why this article should be deleted), that I would like to leave a short comment. I actually know lots of websites, where Hotz(e) is mentioned.
 * German Wikisource
 * A complete book about Hotze
 * Napoleon online
 * ...and many more. In every case, Hotze is described as an exceptionally gifted General. He surely is of some importance in european history, thats why I really cant understand, why someone can write, that it is not clear, how this person is notable??
 *  Rectilinium  '♥' 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * not to worry, that was a bot message that went up when I was creating the article, and before I actually got the citations into place. It won't be deleted. It could use some more work, though. Perhaps this is something you'd like to tackle?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

J.C.W. Beckham
Just realized I forgot to notify you of this nom, as promised. Please see Featured article candidates/J. C. W. Beckham/archive2. And thanks again for your comments on Simon Bolivar Buckner that aided its promotion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * glad to help. I'll take a look at Beckham later this week, if that's soon enough??  I have a couple articles I'm trying to finish plus that dissertation I need to work on. ;)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I expect the FAC to remain open for a couple of weeks at least. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you very much for taking the effort to review Alamogordo. Uncia and I are the main editors (others are welcomed to edit!). Uncia is on a long wikibreak. I am celebrating Deepavali, which in 2009 is a once in a lifetime event since it falls in the month of purattasi. I am very motivated to work on it later in the month. Uncia nominated this for GA and I concurred. Thanks again for reviewing the article. I intend to work on it, including the suggestions you gave. Should I submit it to you for review (probably in November or December) or the GA board?

Are you really Ruth and an Auntie? :) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you give me some hints about captions not too good (pictures) and prose not being focused? No need to defend yourself, just a few polite suggestions! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am really Ruth and an auntie. :) It is so close, and I was disappointed not to see any action on it.  If you read the comments I posted, and perhaps look at the changes I suggested, you'll see what I mean about the prose.  I'm not so worried about choppiness, because I could fix that, but it is incomplete.  You've got broken links, and some vandalism on the pictures.  When you resubmit, put it on the GA page, but send me a note, and I'll try to get to it.  I will be in Germany for 5 weeks in November December, and won't be doing much Wikipedia while I'm there.  Good luck with this!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Kourkouas
Hello! I have gone through the article, making changes and trying to simplify the prose & clarify some things, according to your suggestions. Could you please check it? Regards, Constantine  ✍  13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just bumping this, in case you didn't notice. :) Constantine  ✍  18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Lent
Thanks again! I continued expanding the article a bit more. I completed the section on the Battle of the Heligoland Bight. Please have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Would you take a look at one of the articles I have on the GA list? Army of the Danube or Battle of Ostrach  or the Cologne War, on the A class list?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I will have a look. First comment, I believe this to be true for A-class review (potentially not for GA), some of the images are lacking the alt= paramter. The spelling of Cloet/Cloedt is not consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVIII & the Elettrice Palatina
Hello Ruth, how are things? Laurinavicius and I have re-nominated Louis XVIII of France for a good article assessment. Frania thought your opinion ought be requistioned. On an unrelated note, I have also nominated Anna Maria Luisa, Electress Palatine; I would appreciate your thoughts. Yours, -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border
Following feedback about the length of Inner German border, a featured article candidate which you supported, I've revised the article to spin content out into six daughter articles with summary versions in the main article. Please take a look at the results (which are summarised at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1) and let me know whether you are content to maintain your support for the article being featured. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell from a brief scan that the footnotes and references aren't yet prepared for my support. I've offered ChrisO my assistance in this, and am waiting on his reply.  Doing a reference / citation format check takes about two hours for this article.  The last one I conducted was on Wednesday last week.  I'll be doing one on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I think they are working on it now.  Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Brooks-Baxter War
Hi, I've re-listed the article for FAC, please point out any lingering issues so I can address them, thanks! --The_stuart (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Danube
I think you should add the Template:Infobox military unit. Something I see in every article, you don't use the – (ndash) when specifying date ranges. I believe this to be a must. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure how the ndash doesn't show up. 1854–1952  ....I see the little "n" over the dash, which means wikimarkup recognizes this as a ndash....?  Infobo military unit?  Okay, will check that out. :) thanks!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question regarding the town of Wahlweiss. Stockach includes a village called Wahlwies. Is that what you mean? Höllental has a Wiki page, you could link this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should settle on one style for citations, looks messy right now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf
Hello! Your submission of Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Skäpperöd (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewed, everything checks out now. Thank you for fixing. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War
Note: Godesberg is now known as Bad Godesberg. You could fix the link MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "Bad" is the 19th century name. I'd prefer to use Godesburg.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Godesburg is the castle, and Godesberg is the town. (That's of course quite apart from the question as to when the "Bad" was added.) -- JN 466  18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I suspect that is too fine a point here. The castle was besieged, and blown up.  And the town was destroyed.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * and if you search in this wiki on Godesburg, it takes you to Bonn, and the fortress, but asks if you actually mean Godesberg. !!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You write "...of the Electorate: Godesberg, a small fortified town a few kilometers from the Elector's ...". So I think you refer to the town that is now called Bad Godesberg. All I suggest is to link Godesberg to Bad Godesberg. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * it is already linked to the article (unwritten) for the siege of Godesberg in 1583, and I don't think we can link it to two articles.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

When is Auntie going to Germany?
A few days before that is the deadline for me to get revisions done for Alamogordo, New Mexico. Of course the job is never done but getting a little recognition from a reviewer is the immediate goal. Bon voyage! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Auntie will be going later in 2010. Too much family stuff right now. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hotze
Thanks for the Friedrich Hotze article. Nice work! Djmaschek (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :)  It is on the GA nominations list, if you'd care to review it!  (as are 5 other 1799 articles)....Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Siege of Godesberg 1583 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Skäpperöd (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Lent
I finalized my work on the article and nominated the article for GA review. I may add a sentence or two in the night fighter section but I don’t want to get into details about how many planes he shot down when. Thanks for all your hard work on the article so far. Let’s see how it goes. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Good job. Not sure I can review it, since I've had so many edits.  And it would be better for a pair of fresh eyes.   Reviews are slow there. I have 5 articles on the list, and they've been there a while.  Do you know anything about Wehrmacht awards--a sword with oakleaves etc.?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fair! Yes, I do! In context of the Wehrmacht the Swords with Oak Leaves may refer to a grade of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. The award was presented 160 times only (once to a foreigner). Recently some historians are disputing whether 13 recipients are actually legitimate recipients. Please point me to the article and I can tell for sure. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * a friend was at a funeral yesterday, and he said the daughter showed him a sword her father brought back from Germany. It was very impressive, and had oakleaves and acorns on the handle, plus some inscription he couldn't read (he doesn't read German anyway). I can probably get a picture of it.  They are trying to figure out how her father got it (he was a Brigadier); I figured he took it off someone.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So it was a sword? and not a neck order? If indeed it was a neck order it would be very valuable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is an actual sword, and she also has a baton he brought back. She called it a riding crop, but it's a baton. Did they award actual swords? Who would have used/carried a sword in WWII, I wonder.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well nobody used swords to my knowledge as a weapon in combat. However, it was part of a formal German officers dress uniform and sometimes special versions, with studded diamonds, were presented as gifts. More frequently you would see German officers wear a dagger. Dönitz awarded a diamond studded dagger to Erich Topp for instance. I think the SS had real swords, Himmler presented these to his troops. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to get a look at this and see what it actually is. I'll let you know. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Have you seen the "template:German title Freiherr" (as an example)? Some of your articles could make use of these templates to explain what the German titles mean to the English speaking reader. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Freiherr von der Hotze
Please check if linking Miklós, Prince von Esterházy to Nikolaus Esterházy is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to another source, fixed the link (red link), but I cannot get the footnote to format properly. Thanks for catching that. The Wikiarticle is about a different Paul Anton II.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You write "The war also touched his brother...". To me it is unclear what you mean by this. Could you expand a little how the war touched his brother. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "Zürich" is spelled with the Umlaut and sometimes without (Zurich). I think you should decide on one version/spelling. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders
I nominated the article for featured article of the day. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bita Paka GA Review
Hi Auntieruth55,

Thanks for starting the GAR on Battle of Bita Paka. Just so you know, the main editor of this article (User:Anotherclown) is currently away on exercise and won't be back for many weeks, so he won't be able to respond to any of the issues that arise. He has asked me to let you know this (I know him in real life) and I'm happy to try to help to get the article over the line if I can, although unfortunately I don't have access to any of Anotherclown's sources. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * no problem, he explained the situation to me before he left. My concern, primarily, is pov--the sources all reflect the Aussie perspective, and there are a few good (English) sources on the German one.  Secondarily, the article wasn't ready when it was nominated (not by Anotherclown, but someone else), so there are some other issues: a decent map showing the locations of the skirmishing and battles, or even the wireless stations; syntax, and other issues.  How do you want to handle this?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can't really help with those issues unfortunately, and as they are fairly significant it is probably best if it is failed for the time being. I'm sure Anotherclown will understand, as he didn't nominate it as you say above. In the meantime, if you are able to help with the German sourcing/side of the story, perhaps it can be renominated at a later date when he gets back. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's withdraw it, for AC, rather than fail it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's done. Probably wasn't supposed to do that, but I did anyway, left a note on the GAR project talk page.  I kept the GA review text. I've noticed that Xavier Green periodically does something with the article, but it is going to need more than the occasional sprucing up.  I don't have the time to reread Hiery's book re the German war in the south Pacific.  At least not until I get this dissertation done. You're welcome to contact Xavier and find out what his plans are. Hopefully he won't renominate until this is fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 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) 17:43, 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) 17:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stockach
I'd be happy to take a look, I'll try and do it tonight. I'll leave a review on the talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War
It looks like you accidentally reverted some of your own edits here. Ucucha 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. thanks~ I did pick the Dutch Revolt, instead of both articles. We'll see. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Lent again
The reviewer claims that the article is full of numerous spelling mistakes. I checked but couldn't find any. May I ask you to recheck too? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through it, and compared versions that JN checked -- there were a couple of German spelling errors and 2 or 3 in English. You should be okay.  We can Sturmvogel to fix any he finds?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

De-jargoning
It looks much better! Thanks for all the work you've put into this, it helped immensely. Sincerely,  Little Mountain  5   00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of princes of Austria–Hungary
May I ask for your source for this edit? The contribution history of the editor who first added the name "Rozen" to this article makes it appear very unlikely to me that such an "Auersperg-Rozen" line ever existed. It's sad that an article in an area so prone to hoaxes is completely unsourced. Hans Adler 14:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not add Rozen to the list. I added House of Mansfeld to the Colledo Mansfeld entry, and I fixed the formatting on the table.  Yes, complete unsourced, I thought, and in desperate need of attention.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You also added Auersperg-Schönfeldscher, so I am assuming you knew what you were doing. But I have removed Auersperg-Rozen. Thanks. Hans Adler 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember adding Rozen, but I might have moved it from another box of Auersperg. Would you correct the Auersperg article on the English wiki please?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. Rozen was added by the hoaxter (whose last name is Rosen). It seems he didn't touch the Auersperg articles, so there is nothing to do there. Hans Adler 18:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks for clarifying. I couldn't imagine why I would have added something that wasn't there initially, except if I knew (like House of Waldburg).  If you have sources on this article, it would be great to add them. I don't.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany's Aims in the First World War
I removed the speedy tag that you added to Germany's Aims in the First World War, as the article's creator has expanded it. – Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War at FAC
Thanks for your comments on the Cologne War at GA, ACR, etc. The article is now at FAC, and has undergone additional "tweaks". I would appreciate your additional comments and suggestions. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am a bit concerned about the Wappen of Cologne you use. I only did a brief check on the internet and it seems the coat of arms used at the time of the Cologne Wars was actually different (See Wappen or Köln Altstadt; I think the one with the double headed eagle would be the right one). Maybe you should investigate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * this was a confusing situation. From the sources I looked at, it suggested that the Eagle and 11 virgins, etc. was used in the 16th century, but until when was not certain,  see here.  The de:Kölner Wappen describes two wappen in existence in the mid-late 16th century, the double headed eagle one and the red stripe w/crowns and silver with ermine.  The site you linked here says they were united in the 16th century.  Ultimately I chose the simpler one, since it was going to be so small.  While the unified wappen was probably in use then, the other definitely was in use. I could create a footnote re this....?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is for now. What triggered me was the "modern" appearance of the Wappen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * it's definitely not modern. If anything it predates the double eagle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Auntieruth55, I've added some comments to the FAC. Just a couple of points, which hopefully won't be difficult to rectify. Otherwise I think you've done a very good job and I'd be happy to support for FA status. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Support? Oppose? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Editrefs
The editrefs script offers a handy way to edit just references, without having to scroll through article text. After adding a line to your monobook.js, while editing an article you'll be able to click a new link in your left-hand sidebar that effectively hides article text and instead displays only raw references (what you've put inside ref tags). It doesn't make (or even suggest) any changes; it's just an editing utility.

To try out the script, add importScript('User:Dr pda/editrefs.js'); to your monobook.js, and force the page to reload. Then go to an article, click the 'edit' button, and in the 'toolbox' on your left-hand sidebar you'll see a new item labeled 'Edit references'. Click that, and your edit window will automagically display all your references—and just your references. You can edit references within that window, and preview changes before saving.

I use the script occasionally, when I need to make stylistic changes across many references; it's much more efficient than trying to spot ref tags while wading through pages of article text. I hope you find it useful. I've watchlisted here in case you have any questions. Apologies again for misreading your citation style at Cologne War; color me red-faced. Maralia (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem. Easily fixed, and I've learned something now, how to use another tool. I've only recently stumbled across them, and this one is a doozy.  Will make life much easier. In my dissertation, I use AHA style, but generally I treat citations as a sentence.  Willing to do something different, however. Just not on this article. ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that said, I just did something different on all these citations and bib, to bring into compliance with AHA. But I'm still going to resist (strenously) using the thingie, because it really makes narrative footnotes difficult.


 * I've of course heard of AHA style before, but have to admit I couldn't recall ever seeing any documentation on it. Took me ages just now to find the AHA stylesheet; are they trying to keep it a secret?! I get using commas instead of fullstops, but placing commas inside quotes is bizarre to me, indoctrinated by logical quotation as I am. I suppose I'll get over it. :) Glad to hear that you find the tool helpful.
 * A small note for future reference, since you are trying out other tools: editrefs.js and the WikiEd text editor (available in Preferences) don't play well together, since they both alter the editing interface. It's a minor incompatibility with an easy workaround (explained in bold at User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js); just wanted to note it here in case you should run into it someday.
 * Another simple tool that may be of interest is User:Splarka/dabfinder.js. Like the 'disambig links' tool you've seen in the toolbox that goes on FAC pages, it lets you check for any inadvertent links to disambiguation pages. It adds a link called 'Find redirects' to the toolbox in your left-hand sidebar; clicking it while on any page will find any disambig links on that page. The code for your .js is importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); if you'd like to try it out.
 * Maralia (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would put the publisher and location in parens, but apparently this sends most of the wikieditors into a frenzy, so I don't do it. But yes, that is the standard, and it's VERY easy.  Just rolls off the tip of my fingers, so to speak. In my diss I'm using ENDNOTE software and it has made life considerably less difficult.
 * I have the wikiEd tool checked in preferences, but have not figured out how to use it. Or is it automatic?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RE wikiEd: when you're in an edit window you should see a small toolbar (10 buttons) on the upper right, just above the big text edit box. In that toolbar, the bottom left button (picture of a yellow pen over white paper?) is the key: its mouseover text is "Toggle between classic text area and wikiEd". Click that, and your edit box will get fancified, with an additional toolbar.
 * The big pluses of wikiEd, to me, are
 * syntax highlighting in the edit window (colorization to differentiate text in wikilinks, ref tags, etc)
 * search-and-replace
 * ability to toggle to fullscreen mode (the edit box expands to the size of your screen)
 * ability to hide references and templates (i.e., the opposite of editrefs, for when you want to work just on text)
 * The wikiEd script is a much 'bigger' tool, and will probably take some getting used to, but I find it awfully handy for nearly all editing. Just remember that any time you want to clean up referencing use editrefs, you must toggle wikiEd off (with that same yellow pen button) and refresh the page first. Maralia (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

***Alamogordo
Is it deserving of a GA yet? I've tried to address all four areas. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the GA criteria and this ( I'm not sure if you need a bibliography and a set of footnotes ) is not required. Of course, that's something I could work on to make it a FA, which is far more work, something for 2010, not 2009. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're planning to go to FA, you'll need a bibliography according to WP:FACR,specifically 1c, and I suggest the style similar to that used in Inner German Border, which works well for resources that include a lot of newspaper/periodical articles. Otherwise, apparently for GA you don't need one, according to my understanding of WP:GACR.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For Alamogordo, I don't plan to go for FA because Uncia, the other editor, probably would disagree with my ideas. For this article, I would like to get a GA and with the things that I learned, to make another article FA (maybe even one from scratch!).  Since you reviewed Alamogordo, many will think that you have a big say in the GA process.  Please let me know if it is pass the minimum GA requirements.  Next time, I'll try to exceed them more. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and nominate for GA. I'll get to it later in the next 7 days. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I saved it for you to do (comments to that effect added). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it in the next few days. We'll see if anyone comments first.  It looks good, though. You've done a lot of good work on it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion about the chart, which I have fixed. Any chance the gray neutral can now be a pass? The numerical average of all the criteria is a green pass mark. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand what the numerical average of all the criteria is a green pass mark, but certainly it passes now. It's listed, and taken care of. Nice work.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Study & Wikipedia
I noticed elsewhere in a comment that you're studying, Wikipedia is a pest for giving the immediate feeling of having engaged in review / writing, but without giving any academic benefit. Watch me stress and wiki instead of writing during the yearly review period. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm working on my dissertation right now, and wp offers immediate distraction, plus the feeling of writing something that is useful. My students all use it, and I started writing wiki articles when they were pulling information off it that was completely bogus.  :)  I appreciate your comments on bibliographies and citations.  Now that I'm done with current FA articles that I had submitted, I can get back to it.  The Cologne War was just approved yesterday or the day before, and I'm not going to submit another until this chapter is done.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A worthy reward for getting the chapter done! Warm wishes for your writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire
I've fixed/responded to all of your comments at the FAC for the article. I'd appreciate if you can respond back. Thanks. :)  The Flash  {talk} 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded more to the existing comments/concerns.  The Flash  {talk} 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you please recomment on the article? The entire FAC was restarted in order to clear some space at the FAC hub, which means any and all comments beforehand don't count. Thanks,  The Flash  {talk} 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg
Ruth, you know, there is a potentially useful source here. Apparently Ferdinand's soldiers stormed from the opposite side when the explosion happened, and some even went up the toilet chutes (I remember reading that somewhere else before). (Cf. the German text on the etching -- that must be the "Gemach" they meant). According to Weyden, the explosion was on the 15th, and the defenders held out for another two days afterwards. Interesting? -- JN 466  03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have read a portion of Benedickte Naubert's book, the Astrological Archbiship. (written c 1791).  I've added this citation, and some additional text. Thanks for finding this!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ode on a Grecian Urn
I have tried to address your concerns on the criticism section of the article, but I feel that I might be missing some tense issues and would ask that you take a look at the article and let me know if I am going wrong in any of my edits. I fear I might be too mixed up in discussions of criticism to be able to use the correct tenses in a historical analysis of criticism. Mrathel (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A-Class
Question: Did you take the article "Unification of Germany" to A-Class? If so you may be eligible for the Military History A-Class medal, skipping A-Class may be an issue. It requires three articles of A-Class or higher and Cologne War and Hermann Detzner would qualify you for this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. When I asked "generally" about A class, unfortunately, I asked at the Germany Project, not MH.  I was a newbie.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
I would have supported now, but it seems I am too late. ;) Well done, and sorry I couldn't help as much as I would have wanted. -- JN  466  22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * but more importantly: -- JN  466  22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! I didn't realize s/he had acted on everything already.  Usually it happens on weekends, but maybe the backlog is piling up.  Now if I could get someone to act on the GA articles I have in the backlog I'd be a happy girl. :) Thanks for your help with sorting this out.  I think what happened is that the copy of Hennes had copy page numbers typed in, because the other ones were omitted from the photocopies, and I used them, rather than the book page numbers.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I owe the system a GA review. I'll take on the Godesberg one for you. -- JN 466  23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * is the Godesberg siege article okay now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(0d) Take a "look-see" at Siege of Godesberg (1583)> Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the translations to the Godesberg picture:. Best, -- JN 466  20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * J, here is the nomination -- if you care to support or oppose? [Featured picture nominee] Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too on getting Cologne War to FA! It's an impressive piece of work (but I hope my hordes of comments have contributed a little to improve its quality ;-) ). Ucucha 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, they did, and I was just going to drop you a note to thank you. Unlike some editors, I welcome comments and suggestions.  ;)  I have no illusions that my writing, citations, translations, etc. are the end all authority on any given subject (unlike some who will remain un-named but who are now causing contention on the FA project talk page).  I may take you up on your offer to check on something at Harvard for me, if that is still open, and if it applies to a non-wiki project (at least what is presently a non-wiki project, but will be one eventually).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think our review system does quite a decent job at things like improving readability, catching awkward prose, and the like (as here in one of my articles, for example). It may be frustrating at times, but it does really improve an article (and even the unnamed editor you are referring to recognizes that, I think, as I saw at another FAC).
 * But to return to a more concrete subject: I'd be happy to help out on a non-wiki project too; I'll have to dig fairly deeply in the Harvard library system myself shortly to get Noronhomys and rodents of the Caribbean a little more comprehensive. (And thanks for the barnstar :-) ) Ucucha 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture nominee
I've added the translations to the Godesberg picture:. Best, -- JN 466  20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * J, here is the Featured picture nominee -- if you care to support or oppose? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You forgot to transclude the page to WP:FPC. I've done that now and supported (I was wondering why it didn't show on WP:FPC.) Some reviewers may fault the resolution of the scan, but here's hoping that the educational value, the historical relevance and the original quality of the artwork make up for that. -- JN 466  00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

quick opinion requested
I have fixed Nokian Tyres from a very stubby stub to an article. It took a lot of work. Can you glance at it and let me know if it is possible for the article to be a GA in its current form? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of grammatic tweaks, and noted a place where you need a citation. I'm not sure it's a GA article yet. I suggest contacting someone in the business/corporation project for some advice.  I was quite confused, reading it, about the differences with the companies, the merger, and why it was done.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading over it. I suppose I work on it so it can be a NA (nice article, an honor not yet created) instead of a GA.  The corporate history IS confusing.  Essentially, the Nokia name is that of a very old failed business where a younger, stronger business in an unrelated industry took it over, discontinued the line of work that Nokia did, but kept the Nokia name.  Later, that company split up and Nokian Tyre is one of the businesses that was separated.  The original Nokia company had nothing to do with tires or mobile phones.  Both the tire company and phone company bought the Nokia name and ended the businesses (eventually) that Nokia set up.


 * Almost like a soap opera on TV! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than make it a NA (nice article), I may try for GA. This is after I see that there are very, very few Good Articles on companies. One that I may model after (and make the Nokian Tyre article even better than) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Westminster_Bank Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KlenauIVCorpsLeipzig1813.svg
A tag has been placed on File:KlenauIVCorpsLeipzig1813.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

nomination
I see in the WP:RFA board that there are no nominations for administrator promotion. You are very nice and a very good Wikipedian. Although I have not done a full scale investigation, I think you have the temperment to become an administrator. Do you want me to nominate you? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I have no idea what an administrator does. I'll look into it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Suomi. I probably do have the temperament, but I definitely don't have the time to do a good job.  I appreciate the thought, however.  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ernouf
I have reviewed the article and placed it on hold, good work there though. While we are on the subject, Battle of the Îles Saint-Marcouf has been on the list for a while and could use some attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DARN, I thought I had got all yours a week or so ago. I missed this one.  I'll get to it in a bit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list, made for interesting reading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Danube
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bita Paka GAR
Hi again. I'm back for a bit and am keen to have another crack at GA for Battle of Bita Paka. I believe most of the concerns you raised in your initial GA review have been taken care of now. Would it be possible for you to have another look and re-open the GAR? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * welcome back. I took a look through. It's MUCH better, although there were some minor tweaks to help it along.  The pov is still uneven, in the lead, in the prelude, and especially in the last section. I subdivided the last section (Aftermath) by adding a section called  assessment, and it could still use some balance there.  What did the Germans learn from the experience?  I think Hiery talks about that.  Also, I'd combine the footnotes and citations, since there is only the one note on Detzner (nice note, btw).  You'll notice I changed some words to give a representation to the Germans.  Take a look and see if I've changed meanings.  Be careful, too, about putting subjects and objects in the wrong places (subjects where objects should be and vice versa).  This creates verb convolutions that are unnecessary.  Don't know how to reopen a review, but will be glad to learn.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire
Hey, Auntier. I was wondering if you can address the comments on the FAC about the source Hop Studios. I gave my reasoning, but the commenter is asking for another user to decide if it is reliable for themselves. I think it's about the only open issue that's holding it up, so I'd really appreciate if you can voice your opinion on it. Thanks! :)  The Flash  {talk} 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Protestant Reich Church
Hey and thanks for replying on the German project wikipage. So you don't think it should be changed, but on the article's talk page, one editor said that "Protestant Reich Church" was not even a correct name. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if "Protestant Reich Church" was the correct name. Do you have any knowledge of this? Ltwin (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nauendorf
Nice Nauendorf article. A very talented officer. Good thing for the French he died early. I added a tidbit gleaned from Liddell-Hart to your article. I also added a Nauendorf link to the Battle of Amberg article I've been working on. Djmaschek (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:12, 20 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) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)



MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Battle of Osan ACR
Hi, sorry to have taken so long to respond completely to your concerns, but I have simplified the article wording even more and would like to see if you are now willing to support it for A-class. — Ed! (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)



Frohe Weihnachten
... und einen guten Rutsch ins Neue Jahr! -- JN 466  15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

M.C.
Merry Christmas! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Marseilles
That's a fair point, I suppose. I won't be changing Marseilles to Marseille anymore, although there is something to be said for uniformity too. - Biruitorul Talk 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a point to uniformity. I haven't changed the name of the article. :)  Your efforts could be so much better placed, with your editing experience.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just now I'm mostly doing housekeeping, but after the new year I'll be sure to focus on some more serious contributions. Good luck to you too. - Biruitorul Talk 21:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Congratulations on Battle of Ostrach, I apologise for taking so long to get back to it (I've been away with only intermittent internet access). If its any use, I would also ave supported if the review was still open. Great job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jacky. I've got another one at A-review, which was going fine until the ed said it lacked context.  Wanted more background etc.  Would you take a look?  Johann von Klenau.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but it might be a couple of days (I'm a bit busy tomorrow). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:German empire 1871 english.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:German empire 1871 english.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Auntieruth55! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau -

Your support
Thanks again for your support and help. If you have time and you don't get bored of reading about "another" Luftwaffe pilot, I would appreciate you having a look at Hans Beißwenger. Happy New Year. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * checked it over. needed some tweaking, and the dates were strange.  He was flying missions after he died. I think I fixed them, but you should check August 1942 (it was written as 1943).  Too bad there isn't more on him.  Cheers.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (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) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Garibaldi's letter to Blind
My feeling is that Garibaldi's letter to Blind is indicative of how European patriots felt about a united Germany. However, I do not have any additional references for the first sentence of the section I added to German Unification. Giuseppe Mazzini's creation of Young Italy led to the creation of Young Germany, etc. Mazzini tried to combine these organizations into Young Europe, with the objective of creating a European federation, in which the Germans were expected to play a leading role. Feel free to modify the first sentence, but I feel that the letter is of such significance that it should be retained in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italus (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * okay, I've worked it into a different section. I've included the letter in its entirety, but not as a block quote. The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize and explain, not to put things in without filtering; although important, the letter as it was was too long, and out of balance within the context of the entire article.  Many things could have been included but where not, for the sake of balance.  If you have a citation for the information on Mazzini's Young Italy and Young Germany, Young Europe, etc., please let me know.  For future information, please sign you posts by using the four tildas (~).  Also, when you add to an article, it is good to also follow the citation style of the article, if there is one, and in this case there was, and to add your  entry to the bibliography as well.  Thanks for suggesting this as an addition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Winterthur (1799)
I have passed Battle of Winterthur (1799) for GA, and once again I wanted to say thankyou both for your polite and rapid replies to my comments and your work in this highly neglected area of Wikipedia (and English language history!) Excellent stuff. If you are unhappy with the new name then I have no objection to you changing it back, although personally I like it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU very much for your help with the article. I appreciate the comments, and the efforts, too. I'll leave the title as is, since it seems more in line with other project articles, although I still question whether it falls into the category of battle, like Stockach or Ostrach, or Leipzig. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jean Victor Tharreau
Auntie Ruth,

As I was reading with much interest your new article, I decided to add "accents & cédilles", which I always carry in my pocket; however, when I checked the changes, I noticed there were some that were not mine, which meant that you were/are working on your text. So I did not save what I had done.

I also wanted to say that, in my opinion, Châtillon-sur-Thouet should be kept whole, at least when first mentioned, as there are too many *Châtillon* in France.

Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.

Frania W. (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, and feel free to add whatever accents etc. I've left off. My French is terrible.  TERRIBLE. I struggle with translations, and several of the sources were French.  so feel free to expand, or correct. :)  best wishes for NY 2010.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.


 * However, I did not touch the date of death which is given as 7 September in first sentence of lead, then once 26 September in last sentence of lead, finally 27 September in last sentence of Career.
 * I think I've standardized that now.


 * John G. Gallagher in his, Napoleon's enfant terrible... maintains Tharreau was killed on the 6th. How could Tharreau be killed the day before the battle of Borodino which was on the 7th?
 * This is a very good question!


 * Inscription on the stone in cemetery is tué à la bataille de la Moskova, so in your translation I replaced Battle of Moskow by Battle of Borodino. I hope it's OK with you.  Or do you, by any chance, also call the Battle of Borodino Battle of Moskow?
 * The inscription says Battle of Moscow, so I think that should stand. Perhaps the French call Borodino the Battle of Moscow?


 * Since you must write in English... don't worry about your French! Aurevoir!  Frania W. (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Borodino vs Moskowa

What you AngloRicans call the Battle of Borodino is called in French Bataille de la Moskowa, hence the inscription Moskow on the stone. Frania W. (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
Thanks for your comments on the Smedley Butler article. I think I have addressed most of the things you mentioned however there are a couple of questions that I have. If you get the time could you swing back by and see if it meets your expectations.--04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping with the prose cleanup on the Smedley butler article. I just noticed that you made a number of improvements and I appreciate the help. I also wanted to thank you for showing me Reword. I never used that before today and it seems to be a very useful and beneficial tool. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I like it too. There is also something that attaches to the Toolbox known as cite edit (or edit cite), and it allows you to select only the citations and edit them (for consistency).  It's a script mono script.  I'm not sure where you get it, but probably you can find it by searching the monoscripts. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you I will try and find it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for taking time to review the article. I think I have addressed all of your concerns but please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau
Auntie Ruth, Please check my c/e there. Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, I will support it at FAC; however, please let me know where & when so that I do not miss the vote. Best to you,  Frania W. (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * here and now Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, Frania W. (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Emblems
Moved! Please have a look if this helps. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

School work
I've was a little slow to pick up on this, but I see that you are going to be doing a school related project with folks picking an article and helping it along to a high rated status. I left a message for you over the main milhist talk page, and did not get an answer, so I elected to leave a message here for you on this matter. Our project's yet-to-be completed academy could do with some feedback from those who are new to wikipedia, and I was curious if it would be possible for anyone in your class new to wikipedia to leave some message with me regarding 'how to' information they would have liked to have known on wikipeida: how to do this, how to avoid that, how to ask for help, things like that. It is my belief that feedback from those new wikipedia would help me and the others working on the academy to come up with new material to cover the blank spots, but before going forward with the idea I wanted you opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, Tom. There are several who want to do military type topics.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One of our major complaints for the past year or so is that wikipedia's generally gotten to be less user friendly. I'm hot to change that during my tenure as lead coordinator, and part of the plan for doing that is the academy project. Also, if anyone in your class needs help, my talk page is always open. I may not be able to spell well, but I am a veteran editor and would be happy to help in any way I can :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can spell, not worried about that, and I insist my student spell well too. I'll refer them to you, and by all means, chime in about topics, that sort of thing.  WP isn't very user friendly, and I'm particularly concerned about citations, etc.  There have been some articles recently that are totally mind boggling, the way the cites are presented.  Straight forward, it should be, but they aren't.  I'm afraid most of my students will be steered away from the cite templates, because I can't (won't) use them.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to make use of those quite a bit, they are tricky to get the hand of, but I find that they are helpful insofar as getting information plugged into an article correctly. Of course to each their own, so if refraining from using them works for you that's fine too. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have less of a problem with those than the name templates that add letters to citations. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Name templates? I've sure I haven't heard of those before (or perhaps I know them by another name). Could you provide an example? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * named refs. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, like as in  ? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. now that is a cool template.  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article suggestions
Here are some article suggestions for your class—articles that nobody has written, yet. Hope your students take a few! Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry A. Halverson – WWII U.S. bomber leader
 * Frederick von Harten Kimble – Caucasian commander of the African-American Tuskegee Airmen
 * Fred Kimble – inventor of the choke-bore shotgun in 1868
 * Lawson H. M. Sanderson – USMC inventor of dive bombing 1919
 * Hezekiah "Hez" McClellan – US Air Corps pioneer, died 1936, McClellan AFB named for him
 * Thomas Caldwell Turner – pioneer USMC airman, colonel, died in Haiti in 1931, hit by a propeller
 * Frederick I. Eglin – US Air Corps pioneer, Eglin Air Force Base named after him
 * Idwal H. Edwards – long-lived USAF pioneer, commanded airfields, air fleets and the Air University
 * Lucas Victor Beau – USAF pioneer, led Civil Air Patrol
 * Claude A. Larkin – commander of 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, wounded at Pearl Harbor, nickname "Sheriff"
 * Vincent J. Meloy – US airman, led Caribbean defense during WWII, and Mediterranean combat group
 * Walter R. Peck – US airman, commanded 17th Bombardment Group, 96th Combat Bomber Wing
 * Carlyle H. Wash (general) – commanded 5th Bombardment Squadron, killed 1943 in transport crash
 * Caleb V. Haynes – highly decorated airman including Mackay Trophy, WWI & WWII, served in India and China, commanded First Bomber Command & Third Bomber Command
 * Newton Longfellow – pre-war fighter commander, WWII bomber leader
 * Ralph A. Snavely – WWII night fighters, saved his wife's life in 1946 after air crash in Alps
 * Orvil Anderson – highly decorated air pioneer, altitude record of 72,395 feet in the 1930s, commanded Air War College
 * Alva Harvey – long-lived air pioneer, first circumnavigation flight
 * Delmar H. Dunton – USAF major general, recon
 * Mervin E. Gross – USAF brigadier general, first commander of Air Force Institute of Technology
 * Reuben C. Moffat – air pioneer, fighter leader during WWII
 * Townsend E. Griffiss – first US airman to die in the European Theater during WWII
 * Oakley G. Kelly – pioneer airman, transcontinental flight in 1923, Mackay Trophy
 * James A. Mollison (general) – executive officer at Hickam Field during Pearl Harbor attack
 * Ernest K. Warburton – aeronautics engineer and test pilot, highly decorated
 * Walter E. Todd – bomber pilot, military attache to Russia, commander Western Air Defense Force, Air University


 * Thanks Binkster. I'll pass these on to my students!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intrusion into the conversation here but I noticed this when I left the message a little while ago. If any of your students has an interest in Medal of Honor recipients, the articles on this page are also waiting to be created and I would welcome any help. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Francis Wai
Thanks for passsing it. I will take care of those things in the next couple days.--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your class project
I came here via Tom's note about the Milhist Academy. I've been involved in the Wikipedia side of class projects a few times now (among others see the highly successful WP:MMM, the slightly less successful WP:NRG, and the currently gearing-up WP:MRR), so if you need anything... There are also some very insightful essays about using Wikipedia in education projects on jbmurray's (the course professor) page, linked from here. All the best with it! EyeSerene talk 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg
I briefly looked at the article. What bothers me (note: not a major issue) is that date ranges are sometimes 1778–79 and then again 1778–1779 (as an example). I would make it consistent. Also note that in the Family section months are sometimes spelled out and then again abbreviated. Again my point is to make it consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read the German Wiki article on him. It states that his wife was the youngest daughter of Alexander Ferdinand, 3rd Prince of Thurn and Taxis. I think you could mention this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can give it a try. Note: I will not challenge your grammar and wording. I can check for logical inconsistencies or omissions as far as I find them.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I passed the article. Nicely done. I have one final small request. Please have a look at the review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * done. Thanks very much.  Do you want to do another?  Potato War  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may, I will have to familiarize myself first a little with the topic. Your area of expertise is a big white spot in my knowledge of history. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Iron Cross and Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross
I was wondering what information you may have on the history of the German Iron Cross. I finally found the courage to start working on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article. I feel that my English is getting better and so far I have shied away from the more complex topics here on Wiki for that reason. But that's not the point here. From a military perspective the Iron Cross, note that the Knight's Cross was a grade of the 1939 re-instituted Iron Cross, closely accompanies German history since 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars. Since this your domain, I wanted to ask you if you had looked in this before? The Iron Cross is very closely linked to queen Luise von Preußen, who was a symbolic figure for the Prussians in that era. She was actually the first recipient of the Iron Cross (unfortunately for her posthumously) and then worn by king Friedrich Wilhelm the III. The cross was stolen in 1945 by the advancing Soviet troops in Neustrelitz. The 1939 Iron Cross and its higher grades also was the first German military decoration. What I mean by that is that before 1939, the German states (Prussia, etc.) all had their own medals. The 1939 Iron Cross was truly the first military medal of a unified Germany, even the 1914 version was still a Prussian decoration. Anyway if you have information on the early years of this award I would appreciate your assistance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * we just had an edit conflict, so I've lost what I wrote. short summary: your English is much better.  I've noticed that.  Second, I'll look through my stuff and see what I have on the Iron Cross.  It think it comes out of the Befreiungskrieg.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * initial search turned this up. As I had remembered, it originated in the War of Liberation.  Karl Friedrich Schinkel Bauwerke und Baugedanken by Erik Forssman.  I can email you some articles.  Is your email on your user page?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Austrian Army cross, first such to be distributed to all the ranks. Rothenberg, Gunther, Napoleon's Great ADversary: archduke Charles and the Austrian Army, p. 243.
 * Thanks for the Emails! I received your input. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jose Calugas
Thanks for the review, I agree that its not ready and in my opinion it wasn't ready when it was submitted. I have been trying to build up the article as well as just fix the items that were identified because as you could see it was pretty lean on content. I hadn't made it to the post POW section yet and I hadn't done a good proof read like I should have when I did the last conent add. I will go back and fix those spelling and grammer errors you mentioned and expand and clenaup the post POW section. What do you mean when you say change the inlines to citations? Thanks again for the help.--Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patience and giving me time to fix this article. I had to do some digging to find refs for some of it and in the end I had to remove a couple things because, although I know its true, I couldn't find a reliable ref that stated it. I think I have fixed the items that were previously identified (and quite a few others as well as added a lot of content). If you find the time could you please stop by and take a look. --Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * take a look--needs one more cite, and then we're good. I fixed a few problems you missed, added some links, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

German Peasants' War and Peasants' War
Isn't this one and same? If so, why did you create another article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * because when I created the German Peasants' War, the other one was a morass of misquote, and had actually NOTHING on the war itself. It is a rehash of Marx and Engels' take on the war, it is not an article about the GPW.  Efforts I made to rename it were reversed, etc.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this is the right way to proceed. I’d rather see you resolving the issue and that the two articles are merged into one better one. This is just my opinion MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but after the massive amount of problems at German Unification adapting an unsatisfactory article, finding where the quotes were, etc., I decided it would be easier to start over. After I started over, someone has picked up the other article and is trying to improve it.  We'll see what happens.  It is largely focused on Marx and Engels interpretation of the causes, and doesn't cover the war in general.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Winterthur (1799)
TomStar81 (Talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied again. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

KC mini review
If you have some spare time and don't know what to do with the rest of the day I would appreciate if you could give the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article a first glance. It is far from finished but I would like some intermittent pointers to structure and wording. I think, please comment, that the historical background is sufficiently covered. My next items to address include the subtleties of each grade. The area that will be very painstaking is to describe the approval process, especially during the final days of the Third Reich. I think the German Wiki article does a fairly nice job here. I ask myself whether a comparison to the US Medal of Honor, the British Victoria Cross or the Hero of the Soviet Union is beneficial or not. I ask this mainly because the Knight's Cross was both a medal for bravery and for skilled leadership, so it would be a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At first look, it seems the history section needs expansion. Why was it called the Iron Cross, for example, and what was the relationship between "Iron Cross", Prussia's ability to resist the French (or not), and the emerging War of Liberation.  How many were awarded during the War of Liberation?  I'd make it really clear that the Iron Cross is a Napoleonic War medal and honor, and provide a lot more detail there. Then, perhaps, a new section on the later constitution of the award, in 1871, 1914, until, in 1939, the Knight's Cross is added.  At each iteration, something new is added. It runs parallel to other HRE awards, with its layers: Knights, Commmanders, etc.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding refs
I read your concern above about the difficulty that new users find when adding references. The refTools may be helpful. Cheers. Sole Soul (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maximilian, Count of Merveldt
I think the Wiki link to Munster should be Münster. Munster is in Ireland, which to my knowledge is not in Westphalia. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. did you fix it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * nope! I wasn't sure what you wanted I will do so now since it is clear to me MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cuirassiers
I found the cuirassiers here: Divisionskommandeur Dufour geriet bei dem Angriff der von Graf Klenau geführten Kaiser-Dragoner, Hohenzollern-Kürassiere und Szekler Husaren (unter Oberleutnant Anton von Bayer und Rittmeister Alexander von Szekely) in Gefangenschaft.

I think your spelling "KürRegiment" was probably from "Kür.-Regiment", "Kür." being a common abbreviation of Kürassier (see e.g. ). -- JN 466  23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ah, okay, we can change it back. I thought it meant royal. ) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In words like "Kurfürst", "Kur" comes from "kiesen" (cognate with English "choose") and marked the princes who elected the king or emperor. The "Kür-" in "Kürassier" is unrelated, coming from French "cuir", leather, and referring to the leather armor that protected the cuirassier's chest. -- JN 466  23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruth, could you have a look at the second half of this sentence: "The 1800 campaign in southwest Germany began on 1 May 1800, at the village of Büsingen, 4 km east of Schaffhausen (Switzerland); there a small force of 6,000 men under command of General of Brigade François Goullus defeated 4,000 men, three battalions of the 7th Infantry Regiment Schröder, commanded by Lieutenant Field Marshal Karl Eugen, Prince von Lothringen-Lambesc; and in 3–5 May 1800." Something appears to be missing; I don't know how to fix it. -- JN 466  02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in dates
It strikes me as excessive and unhelpful to add a non-breaking space after every numeral, as between a day and a month, or in the middle of "17 victories". It definitely makes an article harder to read while in edit mode. Before a symbol or abbreviation it's just fine, and encouraged, as in the middle of "65 km". I removed a bunch of &amp;nbsp; from the Helmut Lent article. If you think about it, using the &amp;nbsp; in  actually makes it more likely to split the "He" and "111" at the end of a line. I changed it to, but now I think that's also counterproductive, as it will confound an editor who is searching for "He 111". And using &amp;nbsp; in lists of short entries, as in the Promotions section, is simply not useful, as there is almost no chance of splitting the line anyway. Please consider avoiding non-breaking spaces in dates, as it will surely hinder editors and bots that check date formats. Happy Editing! Chris the speller (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it makes the article harder to read via the edit page, however, I was told early on that these MUST be there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who told you, but they did you no favor. WP:MOS says that a hard space is recommended in "expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space", but that does not include dates or common numbers, like "16 candles". The next line mentions "Boeing 747", so I guess a hard space is also recommended in "He 111". That editor who beat up on you early on shouldn't have. I recommend going easy on the hard spaces. Happy Editing! Chris the speller (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC on the Unification of Germany, and it w a s a chore! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it was a chore. If you decide that an article really does have too many hard spaces, I can fix it PDQ. Happy Editing! Chris the speller (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NBSPs are not required on dates, and they shouldn't have been on Unification of Germany either; to my knowledge, they weren't there, but I may have missed it. We once had a long discussion at the MOS talk page (I'd never find it now), and NBSPs on dates were put to rest.  They add little, clutter the text, and take a lot of work.  They aren't needed or required by any MOS policy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With find and paste, it is relatively easy for me to take them out, so if you wish for any of your articles to be carefully cleaned of them, let me know. I cleaned out Unification of Germany and Johann von Klenau. It's all for the purpose of making your wiki work easier, as well as making it easier on your students. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find the note that said I was supposed to put the Nbsp after all numbers. No matter. I won't do it not. :)  good to know.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Order of St. Hubert
Question: According to your version of the article a battle took place at Linnach while the German article mentions Linnich. Linnich to me seems correct since it is very close to Jülich. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is Andrew Salamacha. I was just wondering if you wanted us to add our Wikipedia user names right below yours on the project page or if there is a different place to add it.

establish section and example
example difference here Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

diff. Wexlax20 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saralo16 I created my userpage for a diff for Thursday's class! Hope this is correct.] Saralo16 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Jaclyn and here is my diff. Noeljack (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Meeting to discuss project
This is Ryan. I think i've decided that i would like to contribute to the article regarding German Samoa, specifically its history immediately following WWI. I created my user but for some reason the words I put in brackets did not become links. I basically just want to make sure I have a good understanding of working with the Somoa Wikiproject before I embark on research. I was wondering if there was a time we could meet this week to discuss this. Thank you.Ragfin (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not become links because you need 2 brackets. when you send a weblink, you use one.  In linking to another article within wikipedia, you use 2.  For example, German Samoa becomes German Samoa.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trod17 Trod17 diff] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trod17 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I think last time I was hitting the wrong key and I also found the diff page so this should be correct. Trod17 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Gill Diff Ragfin (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

[] My edit, due Thursday. Daniel Kemp (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[] Here is my diff for Thursdays class. Megan Roberts Megzie113 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

my edit Bmonicole (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
The articles Battle of the Nile and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile have both now passed their respective FAC and FLC, and as many of the points raised in these processes were applicable to both articles I wanted to thank you for your assisance and support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Félicitations !
Auntie Ruth,

Congratulations for this new achievement! What's coming next?

Frania W. (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dissertation. ;) And I have a class of univ students writing about 35 articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and thank you for all your hard, high-standard work!--Alexandru.demian (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau
Congratulations! Note: Helmut Lent was also promoted, thanks to your contribution MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff Class project
Hi, This is Andrew. I was just wondering if you wanted us to add our Wikipedia user names right below yours on the project page or if there is a different place to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, you need to go to this space and use the four tildas to sign with your USER NAME below mine.  This means you need a user name FIRST.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

example diff

Hi, this is Mike from class. Here is my diff. mzwhiz21 diff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzwhiz21 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello this is Brandon and this is my diff. Weepy89 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is Tyler from class. Here is my diff that is due on Thursday. rubyt38 diffRubyt38 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is Rebecca. Here is my diff. I added some facts to my user page. clarker1 diff Clarker1 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is Jake. Here is the diff. for my user page. MooreSvn (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is Mallory; here is my diff. for the edit on my user page. diff here Mitchel2 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is Kaitlin; here is my diff. for the edit I have made on my user page. Hersh016 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, this is Ian, this is my diff. Kishwa (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff for Thursday's class
Here is my diff. Rudy4rachel (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff for thursday's class. Benro129 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is Tess and here is my Diff due for Thursday's class. As you will see I have also joined my first wikiproject. DaisyPearlTT(talk)20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is my diff for Thursdays class. ~Katherine Paraskevia8 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

B-class for Karl Eugen, Prince von Lothringen-Lambesc
I think it will fail because of "B5 - contains appropriate supporting graphics, infoboxes, or images" MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added an image of the Order of Maria Theresa. There are no bona fide pictures of him.  It has an info box.  That's it for the images, unless they are extraneous--as in marginally related to him.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, while I understand your problem, I do want to ask the community how strict this rule is. Question: have you seen this or this de:Böhmisches Dragoner-Regiment „Herzog von Lothringen“ Nr. 7? Why didn't you mention that he was briefly married? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, I did see that. But he was the Colonel and Inhaber of the Kurassier Regiment Number 7, and I think, but I'm not sure, that this was an Austrian regiment, not a Bohemian one.  See here.  The Bohemian regiment has different numbers. Karl Eugen was not a duke of Lothringen and Bar.  Auntieruth55 (talk)
 * oh, and yes, I saw also the ADB source. I read it and used the material on Ebert. Information relatively the same.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * B, see the response here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. I passed B-class. May I ask you to add one sentence that he had a wife, got divorced and had no children. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Shaping of the Modern World
Hello Ruth,

I have made my account, created a user page, and now I am giving you the link that contains the diff of my user page below. Mangophumin (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mangophumin&diff=prev&oldid=340439890

Michael

Hi i was just wandering but i am really struggeling with learning how to use wikipedia... could we have a couple classes dedicated to learing wikipedia editing skills. where we sit in a computer lab and you could show us and we try it while your there because it litterally took an hour and a half to find where it shows a diff. i woud even go to something that was outside of classtime if that was more convenient. Kishwa (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Class Diff
Hello. This is Chelsea and here is my diff for Thursday's class. Chelcal Diff Chelcal (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi This is Nicole and here is my diff for Thursday's class. .Nicocorn20 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Julz131 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)| Julz131 Diff Here

Here's mike's diff Timpguy22 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Santolinek (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Donovank (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just created my user page. DukeSoccer11]165.190.165.156 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Diff (included links)Ragfin (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Katelyn Diff Panzak7 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jared C. Monti
I wasn't 100% sure about what you wanted me to change but I think I got it. Please let me know if you wanted me to chaneg something else. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you only got part of it. I've started the process under your references.  For these references, you have no citations. The need inline citations, and then can return to the Reference section.









Brittany diff165.190.89.150 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I think I got all the refs fixed and I added a bit of content as well. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When you get a moment could you take a look and see if I fixed everything on this article. --Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alt descriptions
I am still working on them. After discussion on the alt description talk page, it was decided necessary to give the person's name in the alt description, which is always read before the caption. They took my advice on this, as I have experience in educating and writing for the blind, particularly about art and cultural objects. I am sorry that I used English spelling. I hadn't realised that the article was in US spelling. But just the same, please don't refer to the changes in spelling as "correction". There is a good case for having all European subjects written in the language of that English-speaking nation which is now part of the European Union. Amandajm (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * there were spelling corrections that were not honour to honor, etc. Actually, quite a few. There were also spelling changes to keep the article consistent. I'm happy to use the British form, but it is not something I do automatically.  Where is the new guideline on including the person's name?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
Hi Ruth, I currently have Scientology in Germany (currently a GA) at peer review and would be very grateful if you could have a look over it and let me know how close or far it is from a state where it might pass FA ... and what needs to be improved. Thanks, -- JN 466  22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

German Peasants' War
Auntieruth55, well done for getting a grip of this. Will we be able to delete/move/rename the other article so this one can become Peasants' War (assuming there are no others equally notable ones around the world)? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * rename, probably. It's entirely unsatisfactory, but I cannot see being permitted to delete it, and I'd rather not merge the two, because the other has such misinformation in it. Is this something you'll collaborate on?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1910 Cuba hurricane
Hey—thanks for the review. I've responded to most of your concerns, so another look would be great. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Threading discussions at FAC
It would be helpful if you would thread your responses and sign them at FACs. When you simply bold your response and add it to the end of a statement written by another editor, it is confusing. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * do you mean add colons and what not to indent? or to make a separate discussion? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To indent, like we are doing now. Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nauendorf
Ruth, have you seen the Nauendorf biography at http://www.napoleon-online.de/AU_Generale/html/nauendorf.html? If napoleon-online.de qualifies as an RS, given its association with the Napoleon Series, then this bio has Nauendorf's birth year (currently missing in our GA on him) and adds another forename (August). It also says Nauendorf crossed the Rhine on 21 May near Konstanz and Stein: "am 21. Mai 1799 bei Konstanz über die reparierte Rheinbrücke und bei Stein am Rhein über zwei Pontonbrücken". -- JN 466  01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Nauendorf bio has his birth date, and it cites Jens Ebert's bio on napoleon-online.de I've expanded the Nauendorf paragraph in his bio somewhat.
 * Silly me; I didn't see it in the lede, and then searched for 1740 and found no match. 1740 is the birth year napoleon-online gives for him, rather than 1749, and they do mean it, because they say he was 23 in 1763, when he joined the military. If he was born in 1749, he would have been 13 or 14 when joining the hussars in 1763. I think Wikisource may have a typo.  JN 466  11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That German Wikisource page has many, many, many typos (so many that I would not link to it; it seems to be unedited OCR output). But as it happens, the birth year is not one of them: the original Allgemeine deutsche Biographie also said 1749. I still suspect it may be an error though. This more recent source, by an Austrian school book publisher, says he was born in 1740. -- JN 466  13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This French source, also ancient (1840), says Hotze crossed on 22 May at Hochst and Meiningen: (right column, middle) and says Nauendorf crossed at Stein on the 21st (right column, bottom). I'll have a look for modern French sources ... -- JN 466  01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that is Jomini, and I've used his later work, on Mountain Warfare, as a source. Hotze did not cross at Hochst, though, or at least not the Hochst that is by Frankfurt am Main.  He was in eastern Switzerland, between Feldkirch and Bregenz,  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jomini means Höchst, Austria, which is about 10 miles north of Meiningen, just south of the eastern end of Lake Constance.  JN 466  11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Swiss 1931 source:. A German source from 1799 (!, a bit like the daily paper) says Nauendorf crossed on 22 May near Constance and Stein:
 * and Archduke Charles crossed by Bussingen, and stayed at the Closter Paradies. I made a hike through there a few years ago, and there is a marker where the Schiffsbruecke was (well, sort of).  It would have been a good crossing.  The river has a very low bank on both sides, making it easier to cross.  There are also a few WWII bunkers. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From the Austro-Hungarian war archives: At any rate, Nauendorf and Hotze clearly crossed the river at multiple places around 21/22 May ... Here another 1857 source that makes clear that there has long been confusion about when and where exactly Nauendorf crossed: This source gives three contemporary versions of the story: -- JN  466  02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hotze crossed the river further east, before it enters the lake, I think. And his men made hasty tracks toward Winterthur, giving the timing, and the amount of marching they must have done. Thanks for finding these. Very interesting!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

possible project
[] I had spoken with you today, and wanted to expand on this article. Maybe by giving more history, events, and adding Vice Presidents to the catagory because my Uncle is VP now and I could do a biography as well. Even saying about what minning was like before the UMWA. Is this topic okay, or should I choose another? Megzie113 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a comment on your user page re this. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is Tess I found a short article on the novel I just read "the Bad seed" I know I can edit and expand the article greatly. The link to the article has been posted on my userpage. If you check the history of the article page you will see I have already started editing. Please look at the artilce and let me know if you agree with my idea. I am also curious to know if I can place the code you have given to allow others to know I am working on it for a school project? When I start working on the article I would prefer if others did not do too much editing. Thank You DaisyPearlTT (talk) 15:06, 4 February 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) 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rights
It's a misnomer; it should be "autoreviewed".

It means that I, as an administrator, have decided that you, Auntieruth55, know what you're doing to the extent that any page you create is considered valid -- and that you create new pages often enough that it's more efficient to just mark them all as valid by default, instead of leaving the "unpatrolled = needs to be checked by a human" tag on them. DS (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall leaving a tag on anything, so I suppose I don't have to do anything else, yes? Just proceed as usual?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It pertains to New pages patrol/patrolled pages. All pages have an 'unpatrolled' tag on them that's only visible if you go through the 'unpatrolled' queue... or rather, all pages except those created by administrators, by authorized bots, and by people with the 'autoreviewed' tag. DS (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thx. I reversed some vandalism on your page earlier. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC - Tropical Storm Marco (1990)
Replied to all the comments. Thanks for actually reviewing. Tony1 hasn't even done anything since i pinged him, so who knows :| Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 11:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, thanks.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Loxton
I've replied. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've replied again  YellowMonkey  ( Southern Stars photo poll )  07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * done again  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll )  03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

kemp bibliography
My bibliography is on my talk page. I need to clean it up still, but its a start. Timpguy22 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Contact
Auntie Ruth, I have never figured out how to contact someone off wiki, so, if you know how, why don't you contact me instead? Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig
Thanks for your suggestions and improvements MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming coordinator elections
In about two weeks the coordinator election will take place, and I decided to leave a message here on behalf of the current coordinator tranche to urge you to run for coordinator for this upcoming tranche. We feel you would make an outstanding coordinator for the project, and it is our belief that you would easily obtain a spot should you decide to add your name to the running. You are, of course, under no obligation to run, but an editor of your caliber would be a welcome addition to the force. More information on coordinatorship may be found on the relevant academy page, while a description of the coordinator tasks can be found here. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As a student myself I know how hard it can be at times to budget school work and wiki-related work. Thanks for the reply, and good luck on your dissertation. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Messages from my students
My students can leave me messages here. Please don't add to this section unless you're one of my students! I'll cross out messages when I've dealt with them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References If my main source of reference is the book that Frank McKetta wrote, can I just use other sources to back up his information? If so how do I document them in the actual article? DukeSoccer11 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment on your sandbox.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

here are our referencesSaralo16 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Megzie113 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I am stuck with my article, can you give me some pointers on how to make it better?
 * Sure. Where do you think you're stuck?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek III
Just letting you know I've responded to you comments on the FAC page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the problem statements you brought up; let me know if those work more to your liking. I've also added another 150 words or so about Genesis; I'm hesitant to go into the nitty-gritty detail it would require, but I've added some general information about the miniatures and filming tasks in the appropriate subsections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Godesberg
There is a German book,, which has a 17-page chapter by Potthoff specifically on the 1583 Godesberg siege („... ein solches Nest, deme man wider alles verhoffen weder mit groben noch klainen geschütz nichts abgewynnen khann“ - Die Belagerung und Zerstörung der Burg Godesberg im Jahre 1583). Unfortunately, it's a bit on the expensive side (about $100). Would you have access to this through your university? -- JN 466  13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With a lot of jiggery-pokery in google books I have now been able to look at Vol 5 of the "big" Ennen (1880), pp. 155–157, which you had originally cited:
 * Interesting points from that account include that
 * the initial explosion and resulting building collapse killed more than a hundred people in the castle according to Ferdinand (only 72 were alive after it)
 * the reason everyone, including women and children and "a priest from Freisingen", were killed was that they were "Freibeuter" (freebooters or filibusters)
 * The newspaper quoted in Ennen says Ferdinand asked the castle to surrender; they laughed at him and went back to lunch, and he lit the fuse that hour. According to Ennen he did so on the 17th (not the 15th), and the fight took two hours (not two days). (Sources disagreeing ... at least they both say it was around lunchtime!!!) According to Ennen, Ferdinand said the mine was on the Friesdorf side (Friesdorf is to the north of the Godesberg); Potthoff however, going by where damage to the castle structure seems to be severest, opines (on p. 15) the mines were probably on the southeast side. I am beginning to realise that history is not an exact science ... -- JN 466  15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is definitely not an exact science. Sometimes it is finding the common ground between several stories, which is what I've tried to do. I'll see if I can get the chapter from Potthoff, but if you have access to the book, perhaps you could scan it for me and email it. The illustration shows that the mine went off over the village, but it would make more sense if they destroyed the side where the main gate was located, given that the road led there and it would have been easier to enter that way.  There is a fine line between reporting what they all say and original research.  So I tried to find the middle ground, and just give a broad picture. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * duh, I have Potthoff. I think we could incorporate more, before it goes to FA.  I'd really appreciate some help with this, though. I'm trying to finish up my dissertation.  We could do it together and make a joint nomination?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would love to. Would it be possible for you to send me the relevant pages from Wiedemann 1920? There seems to be further interesting detail in there as well, but the google books snippets are really torturous to work through. I could do an English summary of the relevant pages that we could both work from. As for Potthoff, do you mean to say you have Potthoff's 2006 chapter, or only her dissertation? It would be good to use these sources to get more detail on the events at the actual siege. -- JN 466  19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have her diss, not her book. It seems that we should also expand the castle article in conjunction with the siege article.  I don't have the Weidemann book any more, nor did I make a copy.  It is at Harvard, and we have a contact there who might be able to get it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the article passed ACR today. let's plan to add a few bits to it and then nom for FA. I was thinking a layout of the castle would be good, and if there is more in the different sources that we can get them to agree on, then that would be good too. Otherwise, perhaps just the layout, and then expand the article on die Festung itself. ??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, congratulations. I agree a layout of the castle would be useful, including the position of the chapel relative to the main castle. Potthoff has a drawing in her dissertation.
 * By the way, Potthoff mentions the castle before its destruction is shown on a church window, a photograph of which is here. It would be nice if we could upload it, but I guess the photograph is copyrighted.
 * One thing that bugs me is that we really ought to have seen Ferdinand's letter for the article to be comprehensive (cf. Potthoff p. 26). Let me know if you can't get hold of the Potthoff book; I'll shell out for it if need be. If we can't get hold of Ferdinand's letter, she probably quotes the relevant parts of it, since she clearly had access to it. -- JN 466  21:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Her book doesn't seem to be available here. I'd rather not buy it, German books are expensive in the US, usually VERY, and I can't find it on the usual sites.  Is it available at one of the libraries there?  Could you copy the appropriate chapter?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it. Looking for the wrong thing. It also costs $100. min, so I suspect its out of the price range.  They have it in the Harvard Library, and some French libraries. Are you in France? Do you know which chapter it is?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ruth, I've been distracted. The chapter is Tanja Potthoff: «...ein solches Nest, deme man wider alles verhoffen weder mit groben noch klainen geschütz nichts abgewynnen khann» - Die Belagerung und Zerstörung der Burg Godesberg im Jahre 1583. I've got the book on order now. All being well, it should be here within a few days. I'll let you know when it comes and what it looks like. -- JN 466  23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)
Hi, welcome back. I see your interest in the film. I noticed your corrections on the page. You cleaned up some wording. However, I also saw you removed content from within some of the quotations. Like with Roger Ebert's quote, you took out the word "keeps". Are you sure about making that particular correction? It doesn't sound right. His exact words from his review was the word "keeps". I don't see how it helps to put in your own word "kept" instead right before it and add the following: (...). Please let me know. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mike, that is the kind of thing that needs to happen. Keeps was the wrong form of the verb, to keep.  By taking "keeps" out and changing it to "kept" and then moving the quotation marks over, the verb usage remains the same throughout your sentence.  It doesn't change the meaning of the quote.  Adding the ... means that a word (or something) has been changed or omitted).  The meaning stays the same.  I also changed some of the punctuation; even if you have a period within the quote you are using, you cannot leave it in the quote and then continue with your sentence.  You would only leave it in if you are ending your own sentence there.  Then the beginning of the next sentence would be capitalized.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha Ha Haha Hah Ha HA....................Ok, no problem. Please make sure any future edits are also grammatically correct. I'll be watching your back ... lOl .......Mike Tompsonn (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll read at FA nom, but I hope you'll have the grammar right yourself by then.... ;) Your film project buddies should help you.  I hope you'll get a peer review at least from the project. I don't know if they do an A class review there or not.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ....lOl.....Well, indeed. I'm actually doing some more written research with the film. In the coming days, I plan to make some major additions to the Production section. From there, I will make a pit-stop at Peer Review. If they don't do an A-Class reviews, then its straight to FA.......lOl.....Don't worry, if you guessed I would be back, you're right! I will be back with a more improved page. Its not a question of If, its a question of When. This article will be on the front page certified FA. I encourage you to rent the film if you haven't already.....lOl.... Mike Tompsonn (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonn coat of arms
The coat of arms dates back to 1896–1900. Source: The image that's in the article is a vectorised version of the Commons file shown to the right. (This has a different public domain rationale than the vector graphic created by de_User:Jüppsche.) I've added the creation date to both file descriptions in Commons. If we also need a file creation date for the vector graphic, I can check with Jüppsche on de:WP, but I would think it was probably the date he uploaded it. -- JN 466  00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we're good on the images, and all we have to do is extract what we want from Potthoff (maybe a diagram of the castle layout), add a paragraph or a sentence or two, and then we can go forward with it? I like the cleaned up versions of the pix, btw.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodie. The German book with the Potthoff chapter on the siege should be dispatched today, and hopefully be here next week. I'm hoping it may have more details on how exactly the castle was taken, and the defenders perished, and resolve some of the conflicts between our sources.
 * I'm no expert in Photoshop, but I think I might be able to create a simple version of Potthoff's diagrams, showing the outline of the defensive walls, the part that was blown up, the location of the keep, and the location of the chapel. It's probably best to wait until I've read the book though. -- JN 466  09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded the church window image of the castle as it looked before its destruction. I've added it to the Godesburg article; we could use it in the siege article as well. Being the only image of its kind, it's of historical interest, but not particularly gorgeous to look at. What do you think? -- JN 466  15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, the little spire to the front right of the image should be the tower of St Michael's Chapel. -- JN 466  15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to include it, but wasn't sure about it. There is also the Merian image, but this one is better in that it was not imagined, but real.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We should put this one where the Merian image is, and then create a new section on the siege/castle ruins in art and literature.

Talk:Siege of Malta (1798–1800)
please see comment on article reviewed by you[]. Thank you Osannapia (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let me do what I said I would
Auntie Ruth, I mentioned working on Quehanna Wild Area at WT:FAC and then went off to do the necessary book work before editing here. Now I see you have jumped in without contacting me and, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, I would ask that you please let me work on the article, as I have a lot of print sources that I see you do not have. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC) PS I did not mean to say I WP:OWN the article and welcome help, just wish our efforts could have been more coordinated. Will raise specific concerns on the Quehanna talk page. Sorry to come across as cranky, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no need to revert what you added - if you could see if you can track down any info on the Chinklacamoose people, that would be helpful (I have Donehoo's Indian Villages and Place Names in Pennsylvania and Wallace's Indian Paths in Pennsylvania, both of which talk about the village). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fürstenberg
Yes, thanks to your explanation I now understand what you meant. I still wonder however if this naming scheme (I lack a better word here), on an abstract level, justifies an article of its own. Personally I am not familiar with royal household names and come from a culture where the family name is passed from father or mother to their children. Just an idea MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eventually, probably. Same culture here, except Americans and often Aussies are obsessed with titles. It's very bizarre.  So will you support the article? Auntieruth55 (talk)

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) 21:02, 1 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) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mindomys
Thanks for reviewing Mindomys; would you mind getting back to Featured article candidates/Mindomys/archive1 to clarify your concern with the sentence you quoted? Ucucha 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Military offices boxes
Auntieruth55, you may want to add military offices boxes to your Austrian general bios. I've started adding them to mine for regimental proprietors. See Anton Ferdinand Mittrowsky and Johann Meszaros von Szoboszlo for examples. To get the proprietor information, try the Smith-Kudrna link or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kavallerieregimenter_der_kaiserlich-habsburgischen_Armee_der_Fr%C3%BChen_Neuzeit#Stammliste_1798_und_Verbleib_1806. Good luck. Djmaschek (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Floß, Potthoff
Hi Ruth, I have excellent news, on two accounts: I'll be in touch by mail once I've had a good look through both sources. (I've started the copyedit on the potato war article ... will carry on later.) -- JN 466  20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The book with the Potthoff chapter arrived today. It has a lot more detail about the course of the siege prior to the explosion, which we can use to expand our account of the siege proper, e.g.
 * 2) *where the cannon were positioned,
 * 3) *that the wall of the Vorburg had been breached in late November, but repaired again by the defenders when Ferdinand's experts decided that storming the Vorburg would still incur too many casualties,
 * 4) *peasants from the surrounding countryside were forced to dig the saps; many of them were killed by stones launched by the defenders;
 * 5) *sapping to approach the outer walls lasted from late November to December 6th; undermining the walls lasted another 10 days;
 * 6) *the explosion was clearly on the 17th, apparently;
 * 7) *the collapsed walls were defended and still presented an insurmountable obstacle;
 * 8) *40 or 50 attackers entered through the latrines, climbing up on two ladders they had tied together;
 * 9) *the defenders eventually retreated into the keep (Potthoff's chapter does not mention the St Michael's Chapel at all, oddly enough, even though it clearly was altered to play a defensive role).
 * 10) I've realised that the Floß chapter, complete with Ferdinand's letter to his brother, is in Wikisource!
 * This is good news! Never occurred to me to look in Wikissource for Ferdinand's letter. Will have to look and see if Max Lossen's volume 2 is there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Floß chapter begins here, really. It covers the fall of Poppelsdorf, Godesberg and Bonn. The appendix has the older sources Floß drew on. -- JN 466  23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruth, just happened to notice your post at VP. It's kind of you to have credited me for the translation. I'm fine either way, whatever is in line with WP policy. User:Moonriddengirl is usually the expert around here when it comes to copyright-related questions. (As far as I recall, Wikiquote asks for translations to be attributed to the editor concerned.) I'll drop her a note. -- JN 466  17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having discussed this with Moonriddengirl, we can simply delete the in-article attribution. Talk page attribution is not required either. It was enough to have mentioned it once in an edit summary. Best, -- JN 466  20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gott sei Dank. It was getting tedious, reverting those edits. I took it out, but left the attribution to the original source.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've had my 15 minutes of mainspace fame now. :) -- JN 466  00:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

EKD
What's bad about the EKD article? --Mk4711 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both articles make some sweeping assumptions and ambiguous claims, especially in the history section. Neither deal with the period of national socialism very well.  There are citation problems in both articles, with ambiguous citations, not enough citations, etc.  Finally, the intermingling of German and English is inconsistent, and serves to muddy any explanation of things for readers who don't speak German.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The history section may be the problem of the EKD article. Actually the history of the EKD begins in 1945 the earliest. It's different for its member churches. As suggested on the EKD talk page an article on the history of Protestantism in Germany would be a good thing. It's too complicated in order to do it in just a few lines. I added come sources for the EKD article yesterday, e. g. concerning same-sex blessings. If something else strikes your attention, tell me. Also if there is too much German in the text. --Mk4711 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC
IUPAC is the article we are working on. The publications and some of the current projects still need some work, but for the most part the general outline seems to be coming along well. Let me know what you think on my talk page. Thank you.Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, have you thought about standing to be a WP:MILHIST coordinator for this term? It's really not a lot of work; mainly you would be needed to give opinions on random topics at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tom asked me about it not long ago, but I'm trying to finish my dissertation, and I'm too easily distracted by other things. I'll run in the Fall, though.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. :-) Regards, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Muse in Arms assessment
Wanted to thank you again for the initial reassessment you did for The Muse in Arms. I've left a note here. Would you have time to take one more look? Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

History of logic
Does this clarify? From the other side (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg
Question: You spell Fähnrich without the Umlaute. Is this intentional? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * no it was not. I'll add it in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

History of logic
Hi - could you be a little bit more specific about which parts of the article you find confusing. I re-worded the part on Plato to make it clearer, but the relevant section in Kneale (the Kneales' book, they are/were husband and wife, are the locus classicus for history of logic) says "Both in the Republic and the Sophist there is a strong suggestion that correct thinking is following out the connections between Forms. The model is mathematical thinking, e.g. the proof given in the Meno that the square on the diagonal is double the original square in area. For Plato necessary connections hold between Forms, and inference is presumably valid when we follow in thought the connections between Forms as they are" (The Development of Logic p. 20).

And which parts of the content are you referring to? Is it a question of not being sure? Or do you have specific objections? Whatever you have, I will address these. From the other side (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I have addressed one specific complaint (about the library) here. Elsewhere you say "Plato was preoccupied with definition. Not the nature of it. Didn't definition provide the nature of something else (the thing/idea/whatever) being defined? " Yes, Plato thought that it is the nature of a definition to provide or signify the nature of something else. Correct. Try using Google scholar "plato nature of definition" and you see it is perfectably acceptable terminology in context. Would it be easier if I put "Plato was preoccupied with what a definition is"? From the other side (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] In fact Kneale himself says that Plato asks 'what is the nature of definition?' (p.17) and "Our third question concerns the nature of definitions" (p.21). See also here "More doubts about the strict simplicity of Forms emerge from reflection on the nature of definition in Plato's middle period" From the other side (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession
"Despite the poor numerical odds, Nauendorf and his 50 Hussars sallied out to engage them. When his small force encountered Wunsch's, which was more than triple its size, Nauendorf greeted the Prussians as friends; by the time the Prussians realized the allegiance of the Hussars, Nauendorf and his small band had acquired the upper hand, and Wunsch withdrew. The next day Nauendorf was promoted to major." I can't quite visualise what happened on the battlefield here. Wouldn't the Prussians have realized the allegiance of the Hussars the moment they were attacked? If they weren't attacked, how did the Hussars gain the upper hand? -- JN 466  06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * by then they were probably separated from their weapons. There was no battlefield. It was at night, in the woods, in the dark. Beyond that, this is all the sources say. nauendorf was a clever fellow, and a local man, he probably had a local accent. Auntieruth55 (talk)

Another sentence I can't get my head around: "While the British had been Austria's allies, Austria could count on support in its wars." Should it be "could not" instead of "could"? -- JN 466  08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The British were good allies. The French were unreliable. I'll check this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the run-through. Good luck at ACR. -- JN 466  08:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been nominated. I have another at FAC if you're interested.

Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian)
It should be back now. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed a bit more. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for asking but I noticed that you made some significant changes to the article and I wonder if you are done now? Do you want me to continue reviewing now or later? If you don't mind I'd like to review something that is near stable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is stable now. The additions were in response to your review comments.  I sure hope it's ready now!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
Yes please go right ahead.--Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did half. see if it reads more smoothly now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, The only one Im not sure about is the one about the Spanish war fever but I think the rest of the changes as I see are for the better. Sorry about the talk back thing. Been thinking about changing that anyway, getting kinda cluttered these days. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You refer later to him having a fever then. So it needs to be clearer.  Also, you should pipe a link to this article 1898 invasion  of Guantánamo Bay somewhere in that part of the article, if you haven't already.

FAC
Sorry for not having gotten to the FAC yet, I'm trying to do too many things at once and I am not deeply saddened by the end results both online and offline.

I promise that I will look into the article first thing tomorrow and make any addition comments for the FAC. Thank you for your patients in this matter, God knows I've been slow to get back to people who really needed the input recently. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Tom. It's still got a couple weeks to go before they will archive it, but I'm hoping to conom an article this weekend, so I'd like to get it off there sooner than later. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

UMWA Class
Can you take a look at my article, UMWA and let me know what or if i need to add anything before i get a peer review? Megzie113 (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * looks good. go ahead and get a peer review and see what they say. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Let me know what happens. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Class project
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saralo16/sandbox#PreventionHere is the link to my sandbox where my article is located. If you could take a look at it and let me know what you think so far, that would be great]Saralo16 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some notes. Go ahead and post it, finish your citations, and get a peer review. See what some of the experts have to say about it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted my article and it is now listed as a "start-class article" for the project. Is that bad? Saralo16 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just posted my article on the Freshman Fifteen and have also posted it on the articles that need reviewed for the food project. I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at it to see what I could do to improve it. Thanks! Benro129 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Europäische Stammtafeln
Have you used this to look up family information on your noble generals, etc.? I've never used it, but it might be hopeful if you can get the relevant volumes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Quehanna Wild Area/archive1
Fingers crossed - ich drück' die Daumen! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Schliengen
I took the liberty and started reviewing the article. Thanks for the cookies. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Go for it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're in a lot of hurry! I'll have a look later MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More German places
Do you know anything about Käppel? It's a poorly sourced stub that doesn't even say where the place actually is. (Found it while sorting out a few of the Kappels.) Ucucha 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too much. It's one of those flecken that the Germans are so found of (and there are so many of them). I don't know enough to fix the article, if that's what you mean. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd know where in Germany it is, that'd already be something. Ucucha 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't. there are 1000s of Kappels, with or without the umlaut. I've recommended it for deletion. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, I just noticed that you hadn't been back, and wanted to know what else needs to happen. I couldn't figure out the bunching problem. I did use the named refs template in an article (Battle of Dürenstein order of battle) but that is the limit of my adventure in templates. 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur de Lambesc
Hi, i am currantly editing the article to give it a more French feel! You do not need to be quite so hostile for goodness sake! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * would you care to fix all of the double redirects?LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * then why did you change it in the first place? Why does it need a "French feel?"  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, he was French and had he not been born into his family, he would probably not have had the life he lead or done who he did! LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He was so widely hated in France that he could never return. He was Lothringen, Lorraine.  He deserted from France during the Revolution, fought against a legitimate government of France, and died in the enemy's capital city, after accepting numerous honors from the Habsburgs.  This makes him French, I suppose.  I hope you're planning to highlight all of that as well, as you give this article a French feel.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628
Hi Ruth. You left some comments here and have not yet supported or opposed, but the article is now at the time limit and ought to be closed. I'm holding off until you and ed either support or oppose since there are already two support votes. If you and ed support that will provide consensus to promote. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comments/review
Your Post

Sidney Edgerton (August 17, 1818 – July 19, 1900) was born a sickly child that was not expected to survive very long. He would survive his sickly childhood and, eventually, becaume a politician,  lawyer, judge and teacher from Ohio. He served during the American Civil War, as a Squirrel Hunter. During this time, Edgerton served as a U.S. Congressman. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln appointed him the first Chief justice of the  Idaho Territorial Court. Edgerton lobbied for the creation of separate territories, out of the Idaho Territory,  and in 1864, Abraham Lincoln, appointed Edgerton as the first  Territorial Governor of Montana. He also served in the infamous Montana Vigilantes. After his time in the Western United States, Edgerton returned to Ohio. At his return, he restarted his old law practice.

Suggest:

Sidney Edgerton (August 17, 1818 – July 19, 1900) served during the American Civil War, as a Squirrel Hunter. He was also the first Chief justice of the Idaho Territorial Court and in 1864, the first  Territorial Governor of Montana. During his term as Territorial Governor, he was also a member of the infamous Montana Vigilantes, reportedly among its founders. In 1865, he left the Montana Territory, returned to Ohio, where he became a lawyer. He died in 1900.

Does this work better? You've got a lot of repetition, and his most notable achievement is not that he was a sickly child and survived, but several of the other "jobs". Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank You So Much For The Advice! But the reason that I have added more info is because at the moment Sidney Edgerton is in an A-Class review, and one of the review comments asked for me to expand the Intro. Thanks again for the advice, and if you could help expand the Intro it would really be appreciated. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

section break in Quehanna
Thanks for letting me know, but I have to confess that I am not sure at this point what you are talking about specifically. Could you provide diffs please? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I am OK, but I still do not understand your original comment on my talk page (on the section break). I plan to work on the rest of Geometry guy's comments next. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * we changed as section break at the last minute yesterday (probably not a good idea to do things at the last minute). It occurred to me later it would have been better to make the break a paragraph earlier, Here: Many in the conservation movement urged the state to buy back the land, especially after the Curtiss-Wright lease was canceled. In April 1967 Penn State vacated the site and gave the reactor complex to the state. Martin Marietta departed in June 1967, and early in that same year, Pennsylvania bought the remaining land back from Curtiss-Wright for $992,500, about $811,000 more than they had sold it for in 1955. Various usage plans for the area were proposed, including: a vacation resort with a large artificial lake, motels, golf courses, and honeymoon resort; a Penn State game preserve stocked with exotic animals like bison and boar; a large youth camp for several hundred children; and a radioactive waste disposal site. By November 1967, all of the land was back in the state forests and state game lands than where we put it.
 * But if it's working now, perhaps the best place to leave it is where it is. :) Let me know if you want some help on anything. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand re birches. I've just noted with the rest. 12:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has suggested moving it, perhaps we should let it stay where it is. I just removed the last of the white bircg prargraphs from Fauna - see the FAC. Sorry and if you have a clearer idea where that could go, please suggest it. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. You don't have to do everything they suggest, though, if you you have a good reason to keep it the way it is.  If they tell you to take something else out, for example, that you want to keep.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the problem was I the more I thought about it, the less I saw how it fit into that section and I couldn't see it fitting elsewhere smoothly. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Edgerton
I have fixed the problems that you have presented, and I am ready for more :) Just keep bringing comments: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sidney Edgerton. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Emil Lang
Thanks for reviewing, improving and passing the article. Could you please update and set the overall pass/fail to yes (see Talk:Emil Lang (fighter ace)/GA1) Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at an article
I will be glad to take a look at it, but it will need to wait until tomorrow - calling it a night now. I had heard of Ulm and Austerlitz, but not this battle. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election
for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anschluss FAR
Hi Auntieruth! You had expressed interest in working on the Anschluss article when it first came up for FAR. It has since moved to the FARC section, where editors enter keep/delist declarations. Do you still have an interest in working on this article to bring it back to FA status? If so, the review can be kept open longer, but if you no longer have the interest, the review will most likely be closed at the end of the original two-week period. It is still early in that period, but I wanted to ask you early on to give you as much time as possible to work. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, I'mtrying to finish my diss so I can graduate this spring, and I won't have the time to do it. It needs a lot of work and I'll be happy to help, but I really don't want to spread myself that thinly at this point.  I'd vote for delisting.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dürenstein
How much time do I have? I will have a look later today or tomorrow. Is that okay? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. It's looking pretty good. JN has been through it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Quehanna question
Hi Auntieruth, if you get a chnace could you weigh in on the April 1 DYK or not question at Talk:Quehanna Wild Area? Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Read This Before Doing Anything Else!
Well, she's at it again. Collectonian has an "article" at WP:Peer Review which, after it is thoroughly copyedited and all the obvious little high school grammatical errors have been found by PR reviewers (this is something she should do herself), she intends to send to FA to get another Gold Star from the good faith reviewers that are not yet onto her "Look-at-Me-Everyone!!!" game. (Take a glance at her user page and tell me that Collectonian isn't a braggart.) Collectonian has found a mother lode of Gold Stars as the subject of this "article" proves. Like her recently-promoted-to-FA-status "article" The Fox and the Hound (novel), this new "article" by Collectonian describes yet another fifty year old animal novel for young adults that is overwhelmingly based on one source - the original novel and its author's afterword. Using one book to write an "article" is not FA scholarship nor is sitting at a computer dredging up every little book review. The article lacks comprehensiveness - read my lips - comprehensiveness. It does not have a Themes/Style/Analysis section which the WP NovelsProject describes as the "meat" of an article about novels and it's reason for being at Wikipedia. Because it lacks this important section, the "article" is not comprehensive and we all need to "man up" and admit this. FA articles are required to be comphrehensive - and this one isn't. Don't give Collectonian a "pity award" because she spent oh-so-much-precious-time mogging from one database after another at Collegeville Library, USA to write the "Reception" section of this "article". That means everyone who mogs from one database to another deserves an FA award. Take a good look at this article. It is essentially an original plot summary that is written in-universe. (Collectonian fancies herself a "novelist" and enjoys writing lengthy in-universe plot summaries.) Some of her plot summaries border on copyvio. Like the Fox and the Hound, Collectonian relies on an author's afterword or an author's note to write the "Development" section. (This is not a "Development" section anyway. It is a "background" or "sources" sort of thing.) Essentially what we have here is a condensed regurgitation of the primary source and we are being asked to grant it FA status. Gimme a break. There are thousands of such articles at WP and none of them should be awarded FA status. But Collectonian is getting away with it - because you and others like you let her. Be tough on this "article". It's not FA. It lacks comphrehensiveness. With all your copyediting on the thing, you'll feel like you've improved it 100% and it now deserves FA. You can spend the rest of you life correcting Collectonian's mistakes but she does not learn from them. She's making the same mistakes today she made five years ago and still expects good faith reviewers to clean things up and pass her articles" to GA or FA. She's using you for a sucker. Don't you have better things to do? Petition to Maintain FA Standards (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Dürenstein FAC
Sorry, I will take a look through again a few hours later (I was initially going through and preparing for Yamato before attending to your article). Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NO problem. I appreciate all your help with this.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for upsetting you, but I was simply trying to help. Jappalang (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you were. And I do appreciate your help.   I had worked a long time on the citations to get them the way I wanted them.  And with all your contributions, it's a much better article now.  I just like to do citations the way I do them. It makes verifying/reliability much easier.  At least, I think it does.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, it is okay; I am not hurt or anything (heh). As long as a system is approved, I have no problems with it, especially for areas out of my know (such as the cite/reference scheme).  Jappalang (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe   N  14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes and citations
This discussion is interesting. I want to discuss this offline from the reviews and I assure you that I'm not making my approval dependant of the outcome of this excursion. According to definitions here on Wikipedia, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source, and a footnote is a note of text placed at the bottom of a page in a book or document. So my take is that they are two different things, are they not? What you like to do is to mix them syntactically together. Right? Now I hope you understand that I have no objections about how write you citations. The problem I have, is when you mix a footnote and a citation into one. Since I don't read books, newspapers backwards (well I did read what happened to Harry Potter first …) I tend not care about the citations unless I want to follow up on them, challenge them, or find them too much pushing a POV. However, I am interested in footnotes because my expectation is that they help me understand the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, better here. This is a common practice in both Germany and the US, Canada, GB, etc.  If you look at Hans Medick, Weber und Überleben in Laichingen 1650–1900, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, ISBN 3525354436, you'll see that what you refer to as "notes", distinguished from "citations" and I refer to as "footnotes" (explanations and citations) are in page footers: hence the name footnotes. This is common practice in academic circles.  Wikipedia varies to some extent from academic circles because it requires verifiability on articles through inline or parenthetical citations. Most encyclopediae do not do that: they rely instead upon a list of sources at the end.  However, most encyclopediae are written by experts on the subject, not by the general public.  So it's understandable how and why Wikipedia's requirements differ in this respect. So when I read a print encyclopedia, I generally look at the author and the sources first, and then read the article, relying to some extent upon the overall reputation of both, plus the publication itself.


 * In reading books, I always read (first or second) table of contents; (second or first) citations (generally); (third) bibliography or sources cited and consulted; (fourth) the chapter which has the name closest to the title of the book; (fifth) enough of the first chapter and last chapter to get the gist of the argument; and (last) the book (if I have time and interest). Life is short.  There are so many books and so little time.  Before I invest several hours in a book (or 25-50+ dollars), I want to know if it will be worth the investment of time and money.


 * I bring the same scrutiny to an article. What are the sources of the article.  Who wrote them, published, when, etc.  How are the sources used to construct an argument or tell a story: this means using the citations, and that could also include reading the explanatory notes through which the editor/author/writer (whatever) tells me of problems with the source(s), controversies not worth mentioning in the article, but worth noting, and other stray pieces of information that enhance my understanding of the subject but may not be integral to the text itself, such as the information on Collini.  Collini in and of himself is probably not going to have his own article, but he is worth mentioning because he enhances the readers' understanding of the subject, but he is not essential to the readers' understanding of the subject.


 * Another example might be using explanatory footnotes to remind the reader of something they read previously. In a publication, this wouldn't have its own section.  It would be incorporated into the footers (the material relegated to the bottom of the page).


 * I understand that this is all changing now, with the development of linkable web-like applications. But a lot of people still print these things out or read them offline, and having two or three places to go to rather to find "notes", "citations", "explanations", etc., seems overly complicated to me.  As you've probably gathered, I don't use citations lightly, so if I've put it in, it's important.  I realize that you probably don't read citations, but you do read notes.  You're probably more the rule than the exception.  In the future, I might put the explanations right up front, so that as the cursor passes over the link, it pops up.  It seems to me, though, that if one wants to be truly informed on the subject, one should read the whole article, not just the pieces that are easiest.  IMO. ;)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"The immortal Battle of Dürenstein"
Is there a deadline? --Frania W. (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Auntie Ruth,


 * I read the whole piece & could not find anything wrong, except at the Orders of Battle where I changed a few numbers to letters. If you do not agree with it, please feel free to reverse me.


 * Battlefield section: beginning of first sentence reads: "To the east of Stein, 2 kilometers (1 mi) down an old roadads... "
 * Since 1.6 km = 1 mile, 2 km is closer to 1.25 miles, I think.


 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My computer is still acting up & I do not want to mess your beautiful text.
 * I used the convert template on that, and it rounds to the nearest.  No one else has commented on that, so we'll leave it.  I saw the changes on the numbers.  We'll see what Sandy has to say.  With those changed, the rest of the numbers are not consistent.  So we'll see. Thanks for reading.  Leave a comment on the FAC page if you can.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Danube Order of Battle
Hi there. I noticed that you had nominated Army of the Danube Order of Battle at GAN, and just wanted to point out that generally, Order of Battle articles such as this generally go to Featured List Candidates, not GAN. This makes sense, as the article is mostly a list of names. See this section of WP:FL for a list of Order of Battle FLs. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know! Do you think that's where it should be? I was hoping for some more input during GA to improve it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it belongs at FLC. In fact, an Order of Battle article was nominated there just yesterday. If you want input on how to improve it before going to FLC, you might consider nominating it at peer review. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ruth, we take lists at ACR, so instead of GAN, take them there before FLC. I was also coming here to let you know about where the orders of battle usually go re Battle of Dürenstein order of battle) (have a look at WikiProject_Military_history/Showcase). -MBK004 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That one was already moved. I'll move the Army of the Danube order of battle]].  I'll do the ACR first, but want to tweak it a bit moreAuntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Austerlitz's citations and notes
Sorry to ask but what is your point here? If I had reviewed that article I would have said the same thing. I just happen to personally dislike, which I believe I'm entitled to, the mixing of footnotes and citations. I understand that this may be acceptable practice, which however does not influence my dislike of this mix. To me the difference between a book and a web-page is that the information in a book may be spread out over many pages and the number of footnotes/citations per page is limited. One wants to avoid flipping pages and all the reasons you have given me are valid. In a lengthy web-page article (one page only) the number of footnotes/citations may become significantly larger and I feel that a clearer separation of both is in benefit of the normal top down reader like me. Happy Easter (Is this okay to say?) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that you don't like it. I was just noticing that I'm not the only one who does it this way. Happy Easter is fine to say.  To me at least. ;)  We have lovely spring weather here, and the 5 ft of snow is finally gone!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just saw that Battle of Dürenstein earned its star! Well done! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks very much for your help, also! It was an intriguing subject.  Next one noinated will be War of the Bavarian Succession. A war with no battles. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We need more wars like that (and fewer wars over all). I know the Toledo War had no real battles either. Not sure of any others. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
<font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession
Bonjour Auntie Ruth:

Réponse à ma page. Mon ordinateur est toujours malade... --Frania W. (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, 4th Duke of Wellington
Thanks for the comments. I have added information about Wellesley's time in the House of Lords, his Party, his military service, and I have made the information more understandible. If you will please assess it for B-Class, it would be very appreciated. If you have any more concerns, please contact me. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 20:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

offer...
Are you running a class project here? if you or your students need help, drop me a line in my talk - I'm good with technical and policy issues, and I can point them to resources they might otherwise not find. -- Ludwigs 2 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Shaping class wiki article
Hi professor, could you please take a look at my article and provide some feedback. Thanks Panzak7 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. See the talk page, and I've made a few tweaks in the article as examples. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anyone to review my article. I posted comments on the talk pages of both of the projects I belong to and haven't received anything. Could you take a look at it and tell me what I could do to improve it? I feel like my organization of sections and headings are probably not what they should be and am not sure if I have enough information now or should try to add more. Thanks! Mitchel2 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:War of the Bavarian Succession
You left a message for me concerning this article, but I am not sure what you meant by responded to the comments since I last saw this article at ACR and supported it. Was there something more you wanted me to look at, or was this a case of mistaken identity? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Saiga article
Hey there this is Brandon from class. I was looking at my article and was wondering if you could help me with the linking it to others. There is that orphan box at the top of the article and I am a little confused on how to link my article to others. Also could you take a look at the content and see if there is anything that is like a how to manual, or any other problems. My article is the Saiga semi-automatic rifle. Thanks a lot. Weepy89 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN for Pittston Coal SStrike
Hi Auntieruth! I noticed that this was a student of yours, which is part of the reason I picked it up - as well as the fact that it looks like an interesting article. I am currently taking a first look through the article, and should have the full review up by sometime this evening. I look forward to thoroughly reading the article, and hope I can be of help to the student in her project. Does she plan to take it to FAC at some point? Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mount St. Peter
Hi Auntieruth55, I tried to add a picture to my article but was having trouble. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and put a link to it in my article, but I cannot get it to actually appear in my article. Will you please help me get the picture in my article Mount St. Peter Church? Thanks Rudy4rachel (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Class project
Hello, I help User:Rudy4rachel with her article and you were kind enough to leave a note on my talk page with some supportive comments. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I noticed that you are leading a class project that requires students to create an article or expand a stub on WP. I think that is a fantastic idea! What is the ultimate aim of the project? If I can be of any assistance please drop me a line. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank McKetta
I do not know how to become a license holder to upload my own personal pictures to wiki commons?DukeSoccer11 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bring your pictures on a thumb drive and we'll do it in class, as a demonstration. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Frank McKetta. I am not sure what else to add or if it is ready for Good Article Nomination. Thank you.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Work.
While patrolling the new pages being made i ran across the Jana Skinny Water article, which subsequently pointed me to the educational assignment you are leading. And i must say that i deem the results to be quite impressive, especially since editing Wikipedia can be quite complex at first if one has never worked with it. Compliments to yourself, and compliments to your students.

One thing that i notice however, is that quite a few of the article's don't use named references for duplicate references. Simply running the article trough reflinks should be sufficient to solve that issue, though in sometimes manual operations might be needed. It might also be worth mentioning this tool to the students as it has proven to be quite practical at times.

With kind regards, (and hoping there will be a 2011 version of this project) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! We're working hard on editing the articles we've selected or created, but it's been a challenge.  I'll check out the reflinks...I suppose it is a bot?  I've done some of them by hand, but it's been a challenge to get the students to format anything wikiwise.  I think they're doing very well--some better than others.  Feel free to offer them comments on any of the article syou happen to read!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * O yes, i can certainly understand that this has been quite a challenge! Writing a quality article for a classroom assignment can be tough on its own, but having to do so while remembering an entire set of guidelines that are specific to wikipedia makes it even harder. And of course teaching a large group of people to do so while also having to use wikisyntax is ever more complex. Still, i hope that they enjoyed it and that you had a pleasant time here as well. As said before, i really hope there will be another edition of this project.


 * As for Reflinks: It is indeed a bot - or to be more precise a script (as it isn't fully automated) which is run on the toolserver (Which is a mediawiki foundation controlled server user to run community created scripts) It has several purposes. First it can "Fill in" barebone references trough the use of the template. This automatically adds information such as the last access date to the article, the title of the article and so on.  A second function is that it checks for duplicate references which it will then convert into named references which only show up once. I ran it against the earlier mentioned Jana Skinny Water article.  Here you can see how it looked before i did, and here is how it looks afterwards. The entire reflinks process just takes a minute at most and is mostly automatic, while doing it by hand could take much longer. It may not always work equally well (It may refuse to work on some article's stating it cannot improve them) but it will at the very least save some time.


 * I see that the project is due in just four days, so i think i can offer little assistance with this project. Still, i might have a few extra suggestions in case there will be a new project:
 * The first suggestion is that the new beta interface may make it easier to teach students wikisyntax, as it is designed to be more user-friendly then the current one. For example it uses dialog boxes to guide users trough certain actions, instead of simply pasting down wikisyntax in the edit window.
 * I can see you have received a lot of communication on-wiki requesting help with writing the article's, and i can only imagine how much work went into this activity out-of-wikipedia. It may be worth to note that wikipedia itself has several sections to help new contributers get on their feet, and i really believe that "Give and ye shall receive" applies here. Your doing an excellent job contributing content, so other editors will happily assist with answering questions. I think there are two methods that qualify best for your student to request help. The template is the first one - A user can add this to his or her talk page along with a question, and a friendly editor will respond with an answer as soon as possible, which may be very fast as the category is monitored and reported by bots at near-real time speeds. The template link itself provides a little more documentation on how to add it. A second option is using an IRC channel specifically meant for assistance. All the user has to do is follow this link with Javascript enabled, and he or she will enter the wikipedia-en-help channel on the IRC server. The advantage of this method is that it is a chat system which allows for real-time communication, though due to network policies present at colleges it may not always work. Again, everyone working on these help channels is more then happy to lend a hand, and no question is stupid. It may just take a bit of the teaching load involved with this project. (The only downside is that some editors may get a bit enthusiastic causing them to start helping with the article itself which may make grading a result a tad more difficult - but the history should shows if someone was involved with a decent amount of the work)
 * A third and final advice before is that besides WP:FA there are two more area's where students might nominate their article's. WP:GA is a light version of the FA criteria and thus it requires less quality to be successfully promoted. Several of the article's i have skimmed across might be good candidates to try for this criteria, though some additional changes might be required. Last there is WP:DYK. All a DYK requires is that: A) An article has been recently created (within 5 days), that it is well sources, and that it contains at least 1.500 characters. The recently created part might also be read as "Expanded in size at least 5x", so expanded sub article's may be nominated as well. If an article meets these criteria it may be suggested at Template talk:Did you know along with an interesting hook, after which it may be shown in the "Did you know..." section on the mainpage for several hours. This may be interesting for the students as DYK article's tend to attracts several thousand viewers due to the placement at the front page (the record, as far as recorded history goes, is currently 71,300 views). I always say that knowing someone actually reads your work makes it more worthwhile to create it. :). Note that these view statistics can easily be checked for every article. The link i added shows the view count for the Yellowstone National Park this month.


 * I realize that i have been excessively verbose, and that i might have mentioned many things you may already know a long time. Still, i feel obliged to do so simply because of the magnitude of quality being unleashed here (And no, im definitely not exaggerating - one of my main activities around here is patrolling new pages and it is quite rare to see such large contributions of such quality). Again i know that the project is nearly over but if you would need any assistance my own talk page is always open. I am mostly involved in the maintenance departments, but i may be able to assist with low to mid-level content contributions as well. And of course, don't shy away from the help channels or wikipedia - everyone is more then glad to help out a bit. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight. They have a few articles at GAN right now, and a few more going into the works in the next few days. I've taken a few DYKs       FAs, GAN etc  through the process.  It's very time consuming. They are doing well, though, and I'd appreciate any assistance I can get in reviewing the articles and helping with wikisyntax etc.  their articles must be posted by the 20th, but we have another 3 weeks or so to get them into shape, before I have to submit grades.Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job indeed (wish I learned about it earlier so I could offer assistance!). That makes it two people in Pittsburgh area that I know that are teaching with wikis :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Effect of WWI on children in the US
Hi Ruth. Sorry for responding so late. I have started the review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Teaching tool
I ran across your use of Wikipedia as a teaching tool at Human hair growth's talk page. It's an interesting idea with some impressive results. I applaud your efforts. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack   14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession
Hm, that comes close to an insult. I am from Nordrhein-Westfalen and we normally don't want to get involved with anything that smells Bavarian. I will see what I can do MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * lol. It's really all about Prussia and Austria, though. Even more of an insult? Malleus doesn't like my footnoting system (you'll see I've done something different here), and he doesn't like my captions.  And he doesn't like my prose. I'm willing to change the prose, but the captions: they describe the action not the picture.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We maybe got off on the wrong foot with this, probably my fault; I'm not renowned for my diplomacy. It's true I don't like your citation style, nor your use of captions, but your citation style is at least consistent, and wp:captions remains a guideline, not yet a part of the MoS. My problem with your captions is primarily that they don't identify the subject of the image. Anyway, I'm not sure that anything productive will come from me further criticising the article at FAC, so I'll leave it for others to judge whether it meets the FA criteria or not. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the captions a bit, perhaps they work better for you now? Yes, I've ummm heard that your diplomatic skills are rusty. It's not a problem, really.  I was startled when you came back at me so fast and hard about the citations and captions.  I always have flak about the citations, and I'm used to it, but it's a standard academic format, and I don't plan to change it any time soon. I've made the changes you've requested in the prose, and I'd really like to work with you so you can support this.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have so many administrators just gagging for a reason to block me that I can't afford to be anywhere there's even the slightest hint of disagreement, as anything I say will be used in evidence against me. So I'm afraid that I'll be bowing out of the review. I wish you luck with it nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is up to you. I'm not fussy about disagreement, I'm just fussy when people don't agree to disagree, or don't respect the other's opinion. And I would certainly stand up for you in that case.  Did someone warn you off this?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to bear in mind that I've been blocked for using the word "sycophantic", and I've got more administrators on my back than you could shake a stick at, just waiting for me to slip up, so I'm going to have to give the review a miss. My policy now is only to engage in those articles or reviews where there is no perceptible friction. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

there is a lot of sucking up that goes on around here, truly. I understand. so hang in there! No hard feelings from me! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Protein allergy
We put our article Protein allergy up for GAN and someone was nice enough to review it. However, they deleted a number of sections and revamped our entire article. And still said we would get a quick-fail. How do we get the article back to how it was, with maybe keeping the new sections they added? Clarker1 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would be good to collaborate with one or both of the two reviewers who have looked the article. You'll probably remember that I said something early in the class: we don't "own" the articles, and lots of people may help us / contribute to the article, once we get it going.  If you're worried about the grade, don't be. I've read several times what you wrote, so it's not an issue.  Now, the issue is letting go of parts of it, and working with others to make it better.  I've "talked" with the editor who deleted some of the material, and he/she seems to have a rationale for it (I don't necessarily agree with it, but this editor is in the project under which Protein allergy falls).  So hang in there, and see what three or four bright people can come up with, rather than one or two, okay?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ACR for Red Tail Reborn
Hi, Ruth, the 28 day period of the Red Tail Reborn ACR will expire soon. Can you please take a look at it again and see if your concerns have been addressed or not? The primary editor has left a couple of comments in relation to your own. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of October (Concert Band)
An editor has nominated October (Concert Band), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Jubilee♫ clipman 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the article was created by one of your students and is causing a bit of a stir over at AfD. Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Brougham Castle/archive1
Hi, I was wondering if the Brougham Castle article is still a bit confusing. I've tried to iron it out, and once you get past the minorities the history gets simpler anyway. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Help
Ruth, I have been conducting a preliminary read through the articles on the list, and while working on Coalition for Christian Outreach I've made a discover that will mean bad news for the student(s) working on the article: most of this material is taken nearly verbatim from the organization's website. This is very bad news for the article, as it now meets the criteria for deletion from Wikipedia on grounds that its what we call a copyright violation: an article that takes all or nearly all of its material from an unfree source. Unless the article is completely rewritten, it will end up on death row as soon as its principle editor(s) move to take the article to GA-class. If the article is to pass a GA review, it must be rewritten completely from scratch asap. I've left some initial comments on certain talk pages for articles I think need some extra help, made a few edits to article name spaces to call attention to things that will need to be addressed before B-class and then GA-class, and will look at wikilinking and other fine tooth details in the morning. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I waited 48 hours and saw no activity for the Coalition article; by the rule of the site, I have been left with no other choice than to list it at WP:COPYVIO and allow for a review of the article. My guess is that this will end with the deletion of the article in question, and while that may not be a GA I did want to intercede on behalf of the student(s) who worked on the article and point out that while the article may end up deleted your students are to be commended for having brought the article to the attention of the site administrators; without their intervention, we may have had a major incident on our hands. Is there any way that the student(s) working on the article could receive some credit for this discovery? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll talk to him, but I'm not sure who put what up there. It looks like he added the list of schools that are involved and some of the financial information, but he hadn't gotten much more in detail.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently the article was deleted three times previously, when created it had copyright problems but no one took note. It wasn't until the school assignment that someone actually looked at the article and the sources, and that's how I determined the article to be in trouble. To be fair, this had nothing to do with the student(s), the article was compromised from its first creation back in 2007. It just happened to have been their misfortune to have picked a bad apple to work on. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He had told me the article was very poorly done, and that it needed additional work. When I looked at it, it looked in bad shape, but he really hasn't gotten to it in any detail.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that may be the silver lining to the story then. If the article ends up deleted I intended to award a copyright cleanup barn star, I am just waiting until the rest of the paper goes through before I do. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mount St. Peter Church
Hi Auntieruth55, Sorry I hadn't noticed that you were editing Mount St. Peter Church, until I saw your comments on /GA2.

I have effectively three copies of the article open on Firefox and I was updating (refresh) the oldest copy of the article because it was out of sync (I have two copies of the article plus a citation open) when I saw your /GA2 comment.

An interesting word Plat, I did not know that a plat or platting existed. What the US calls a Plat and Canada calls a Plan, would be called a Plan in the UK. We have Planning in the UK, also known as Development Control. In Scotland, drawing a plan, or plat would be known as dividing the land up into plots; hence my change to "Once the land was surveyed and plotted; but I have no objection to you changing it back to Platting. It looked like a typo, not a proper word.

Comments will be going into GA2, probably after 7pm (its now 5:20 pm where I am) after I've had some tea (well dinner).

I shan't be doing much for the next couple of hours, if you want to do some tidying up. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

February Shadows
Hi, this is Katherine from class. I have just moved my article from my sandbox to February Shadows. I still need to add one more picture of the bookcover. If you could please look at it and tell me what you think that would be great. Also do I need to cite pictures from Wikicommons? And is it ok that my article is not 50 kilobytes? Mine is around 33 right now but I'm not sure if I can expand any further. Thanks so much. Paraskevia8 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A Bit of a Situation
I am noticing that all of the work put into the article previous to mine has no citations, and I have no clue what source the infromation came from. No one has made any mention to copy right infringements on the article discussion page, and this information has been in the article for over a year. What do you suggest I do?DaisyPearlTT (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also having issues with citations.DaisyPearlTT (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My Article
This is Jaclyn from class. I was wondering if you can have a look at my article, Freaky Green Eyes before I ask someone to review it for me. Thank you Noeljack (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
This is Mike from class. can you look at my article please. It is the Model 1200 shotgun. Thanks!!Mzwhiz21 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Really Need Help with Article
Im working on the UMW page and I really need help, someone commented on my page but it wasnt very helpful and has me very worried about how im doing. Can you please get back to me and help me? Im really stuck. UMWA Megzie113 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

reply
Ok, do you have any suggestions? Im really stuck/ worried about this project now, and getting a bad grade. My other sources dont really help and Im having a really hard time with this.Megzie113 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I just really dont know where to start, what to add, or anything, I thought I was doing well with this, so Im kind of at a stand still now. Megzie113 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * let me take a look through and see what's needed.
 * Do you have access to this book somewhere? At school, perhaps? Biographical Dictionary of American Labor

UMW-New article
In addition to the umw article, I decided to write about the Pittston strike since i cover it on the UMW page. I started it, can you see if its looking okay? Its just on my sandbox. User:Megzie113/sandbox1 Wikipedia.

I was thinking about also doing a section on the Pittston Company, its now known as Brinks Company, but there is no history of this change. Is that okay? Megzie113 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point you should focus on one aspect of the project, and finish that, then you can branch out Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Article: Pittston Coal strike
Sorry to bother you, but I moved my article out of my sandbox to Pittston Coal strike. I dont know if i should put it up for review yet? And because this is my second article, should I even worry about the UMWA page? Or should i just forget that one? Also, my page is only about 30,000 bytes, is that a problem? Megzie113 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No the size isn't a problem. Don't worry about the other page, we'll deal with it.  Or I will. Or they will.  Make the current article all it can be.  I'll go look now and leave some messages on the talk page for you.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re your class project
Thanks for the note and apologies for the late reply. I'll try to chip in where I can, although my RL job role is expanding and I have less wikitime than I did when I first made the offer. I'm really sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment. EyeSerene talk 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jana Skinny Water
Hi!! I was working on cleaning up my articles citations and finding better ones. The skinny2o site I had used is now not used at all. I think I put my article up for review but could you possibly check on it to make sure for me. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelcal (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I'm afraid I've listed this at Articles for deletion/Jana Skinny Water‎, since there seem very few sources and none independent of the company. A possibility would be to merge this article into the flavored water stub and expand it to talk more critically and broadly about the set of products. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof. I am at a total loss of what to do. Should i move everything to the flavored water article which has nothing? I don't know what to do and i am kind of freaking out. Could we perhaps meet at Starbucks before class?Chelcal (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments I left you suggested that the article needed to be less of an advertisement and more broadly written, and this was before the deltion issue came up. So I do suggest you focus on the flavored water, and the claims made by manufacturers of the weight control water.  Much of what you've already written could be generalized to that.  Jana Skinny water falls into a category of flavored water, or health water, and that probably should be your focus.  I will meet with you, if you need me to, but I think it's better to just spend the time moving the article. I'll help you do that before they actually delete the article.  I'm actually considering using tomorrow as a copy editing day/proof reading day and assigning most of the students a related task for that.  I know you are all swamped right now, and I would like to see everyone get the articles in good shape.  What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the other thing to do is model your article on this one Energy Brands. This requires third party sources, and I'm not sure these exist for skinny water.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here are some thoughts... I could expand the flavored water article and include other flavored waters such as Fruit2o and those Sobe water drinks and vitamin water but my question is should i write about the companies and then add in a chart of all the different brands and flavors then add a section of ingredients contained in most flavored waters... any thoughts on that? Chelcal (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you probably don't need to write about the companies, because there most likely is an article on them. The material you have on this Jana Skinny Water company you can move into an article stub.  Focus on the water and the content, and the issues involved with these.  Let me know what help you need, if any. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me make a chart? I would like to make one that includes the brand flavor and calories. Do you think that would be okay? I tried to start a chart in a sandbox but I need to just start over. And thank you for all of your help, I have pretty much been in tears all morning trying to figure out what to do. Chelcal (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC
I was editing the IUPAC article and you started to fix references in the Creation section. I was actually changing it into two different history parts and adding some. Are you done with that section? I just got an edit conflict is all.Salamakajakawaka (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One other quick thing, it seems that the reviewers aren't too fond of my table setup for the publications section. Do you know of any other way I can format it?  If I just put it as a list it takes up so much space and looks ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the comments. I will go through the links and such. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African medicine
Hi Ruth, I took out my large block quote and rewrote it, made one of my lists into a table, integrated one of my lists into paragraph form, and tried to make my section on western medicine more neutral. I left one of the block quotes in about the tribal healing dance because I thought that my rewriting would not do the ritual justice since she was actually there to witness it. Could you look over it for me and tell me if what I did is better than what I had or if I still need to do some editing with the tables and neutrality? Also, I tried to rewrite my lead, but now I feel like it is too short. Thanks, Mitchel2 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Protein allergy
Sorry about that. If someone really is reviewing it, that person should revert my edits and place the proper tag, such as "hold" on the article's listing on the Good Article Nomination page. Otherwise, someone else will come along like I did and do what I did. ike9898 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Class project help
Hey Auntie, I've offered a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition/archive1 per a request, but I think the article needs to be broken down into individual stubs. Would he still get credit for your project if he took the mini-section in the article and made a bunch of computer-related stubs that included a reference back to the Hacking book? —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done many peer reviews but I just saw a section on your page, professor, that says "Peer Reviews we have done". How do I put up my peer reviews? Nicocorn20 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No one has reviewed my article for a good article nominee yet and I'm a little concerned...how do I go about speeding up that process? Thanks! Saralo16 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * it is already listed as "in need" at the GAnoms page, so not much else you can do. If no one reviews it in the next 24 hours, I'll see if I can find someone.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Page count
The page count is in the toolbox on you pages ? At WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I've tried everything I can think of. I looked at you monobook .js my script is the same. Hum, don't know we'll see. Thanks  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  00:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * have you figured it out? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Neuroacanthocytosis
I was just wondering if you could look over my article on Neuroacanthocytosis. I have changed some things around and tried to explain things in terms that are easier to understand. I also stopped at the library last week and spoke to a librarian about the PubMed articles I was having trouble accessing. She also tried and could not seem to get all of the full text articles. However, I did use one other source that I was given from the user who did my peer review. The book that he listed for me to read is not in our library though so I just did my best without it. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Saralo16 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I received a review but do not understand what half of the things mentioned mean, or how they should be fixed. In the "images" section, I have no idea what the first three points mean or how to fix them. I changed my article so all my images are on the right side, even though I thought we were supposed to put them on alternating sides. In the sections "content" I do not know what "dabs" are or how to fix them either. I thought my table was fit correctly, but he said to add more white space, which I also do not know how to do. I think I fixed up everything else in the content section. If you could please take a look at it and let me know what you think, that would be great. Thanks! Saralo16 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to translate some of these things and aI tweaked the table. Yes images are supposed to go on alternating sides, but they aren't supposed to break the heading lines.  It's a fine tuning thing. I'll see what we can do.  I've asked him for some assistance, also.  You can always do that.  do you understand what he is saying about the research section and the cites? I tried to translate some of that.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African Medicine
Hi, I see that you expressed an interest in this article. Just letting you know that I have placed the GAN nomination on hold. Review at Talk:Traditional African Medicine/GA1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

February Shadows
Will your student be responding to the review? The state it is in right now isn't really GA worthy, but I think some cooperative polishing could help. Sadads (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect her to respond, and I've sent her a note. We just started finals, and there is some distraction. ;)  I went through it a bit today.  It's got some contradictions etc.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am doing finals stuff too, actually avoiding about 14 pages of papers due Tues-Weds at this moment. About the review, I think it may have some OR in the themes section as well. going to contact User:Dtgriffith for copyediting methinks. Sadads (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Question 2
Hi I'm Mlpearc I recently joind WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and I am participating in WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010 I saw you name on the list of "Copy Editors" I recognized it from somewhere. Anyway, my question is while editing Baby Blues I found this (which I can't get it to paste properly here so this is just an example "it's set up so it don't show in prose with this <!and in here they have "Deleted image removed:" followed by a file name there are three files "hidden"" this way. Do I remove it ? or is it there for future reference ?  Mlpearc   MESSAGE  00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also (I'm assuming you havn't seen this message yet). In copy editing what do we do with red links ?  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your message. I wouldn't remove them unless they are violations of copy right, then there's a whole process to go through. Just copy edit the prose.  You can flag the article as having image problems if you want, using one of the tags.  Regarding red links, just make sure they are written according to wiki standards (naming, article names, etc.) and leave them be.  If you really want to be thorough, you might check to see if there is an article under another name, but this is not necessary.  If it's something common, I usually do, because people who don't know  better might give an article any old name, and it shows up as a redlink.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to use this script (put it where you put the page count thing)

importScript('User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js'); you might also check my js page for a bunch of scripts that are helpful. There is also a Project user scripts somewhere that has scripts for you to use. I particularly like Reword and editrefs but you might find others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I've loaded the Drilnoth script and I will check out yours. I think this script should be "Stanard Issue" to all Editors, ('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'). But it's a nice secret too  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  20:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Today's featured article/May 3, 2010! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed that was going to happen when it popped up a couple of times on my watch list, being protected and whatnot. Neat, eh? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I have moved the content over to allergy and food allergy. Will now need to go through the text and work everything together. I agree that the content your class has created is much better than what was at food allergy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW note sure what page you wanted the class logo moved to? Will work improving the merge over the next few days. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps move the logo to both talk pages, since the article seems to be half and half. Thanks very much.  I'll tell the students what happened.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 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) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortwave listening
Julie User:Wexlax20, Mark Garvey, and I are working on shortwave listening Shortwave listening. There is already an article on this topic, except we found many gaps that we are adding in. We just added a large section of Lisa Spahr's book, the use of the shortwave radio in America and Germany, as well as the use of it today. Our work can be found under this article's history. This is ok right? We can already work on an existing article? We are putting in a sufficient amount of information, basically an article itself. Nicocorn20 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is fine (I added to Wexlax page), but it needs to have citations, and not just to Lisa's book. Link to other articles and back, push the boundaries of the present article.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some big problems with what Wexlax20 has added; it is essentially a poorly-written book report containing unencyclopedic observations such as "Lisa Spahr’s "World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion" is a unique book that allows the reader to learn more about the major role of short wave radio listeners during World War II. In fact, it allows the reader to learn and appreciate..." etc. For what it is right now, it better belongs in Wexlax20's Userspace, and not in the shortwave listening article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are the new users students and their edits part of a class project? No harm no foul, but given their lack of experience here, I recommend they use an article's Talk page to discuss any major edits they wish to make to existing articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LuckyLouie has been very helping reviewing our work and guiding us through this process. We have put up much research and we are also creating a book review that can be linked to that page. Also, we had a bibliography on our previous topic, but we do not have one up for the shortwave listeners. Do you still want us to create one? Nicocorn20 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * where is this? You'll need to include a bibliography for your new article, ut it doesn't have to be separate.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:LuckyLouie has posted comments on his discussion page. We have added The use of the Shortwave Radio in Third World Countries and the Advantages/Disadvantages of the Shortwave Radio in the Classroom.  The book review has not been linked yet.  Would you be able to look at the information posted?  Nicocorn20 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion is now posted. Wexlax20 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortwave listeners expansion
We had additional information to add but we just had not gotten there yet. I think a meeting with us would be very helpful. Clearly, we are struggling. Wexlax20 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to met, we can meet before class on Tuesday. Before we schedule that definitely, though, go ahead and put up the additional information, and let's see where you stand with it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to look at our article: World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion.  We are really trying to incorporate other historical information with the book but feel like we are straying away from a book review. Nicocorn20 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is straying. It is possible that the material you've added doesn't come across as context for the book.  It is also possible that it should go in an adjacent article, perhaps on WWII prisoners of War, or, as I suggested, in the article on the Luftstalag 3. ???  What does your GA reviewer have to say/suggest?

Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the heading "prisoners of war" to "a grandaughter's adventure" and developed more on Lisa's experience with looking at all the letters at a prisonor of war perspective. I deleted some information about the developing world but do you think that it should just go in another article?  The GA reviewer told us to develop more on how Lisa got in contact with the authors of the letter, but I feel like we have sufficient amount of information on that.  All the other suggestions he gave us we fixed.  His suggestions are on the discussion page of the article.  We have also developed more on the amateur radio operators like you suggested in our review of the article(you sent us an e-mail).  I also tried to incorporate the techonology of the shortwave radio as well as Morse Code.Nicocorn20 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the review and evaluation. Most of the suggestions are fixed.  I added a "Sales details" section and proof read it one more time.  I tried to add information about Spahr's journey to finding the authors as well as how many POWs were affected the the heroes. The citations are also fixed.  Nicocorn20 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've improved it. There are still citations with open links, with improper page numbers, and extra text. I don't see any sales details, but it may be because there aren't published details?

There are still typos and extraneous additional letters in the text, some of which makes no sense. Some of the sentences are in need of editing: "Her research led to find that it was part of propaganda. Germany was waving their flags in victory and this was heard over German short-wave..." ??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) big time redundancy in the background section.  You need no more than 3 paragraphs, but they should not repeat themselves.  First paragraph: Info on her grandfather, and great grandmother. Second paragraph.  The trunk of memorabilia. She thought they were love letters. No, they were something else.  Third paragraph: Describe the letters.    (It wasn't the German militia, it was the German military).
 * 2) Spahr's particular skills at "unpacking the letters' " and their meaning. The content.  The language.
 * 3) Radio listeners.  Who were they, what were they doing....?  What were the problems of being a radio listener? Dangers?

Effect of World War I on Children in the United States
I had left a note on your students talk page because I still believe that a few housekeeping issues need taking care of (see or article assessment page). So far they have not been addressed. I am unsure about my availability for the next coming days. It very well may be that the review period expires before I can have another close look at the article. Just so you know. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Bavaria
I noticed a while back, you signed up for WikiProject Bavaria. I've done a major upgrade of the WikiProject and is ready to use. Kingjeff (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

B-Class assessments
Hi there, noticed you were struggling with the WPGermany assessments, I had the same issue a few days ago. They work like the WPMILHIST banner except they need lower-case Bs instead of B1=, so it needs to be b1= otherwise it just doesn't work. They should really code in the options to the template like we have but that is a whole other kettle of fish! Thanks, Woody (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Argggghhhh. Thanks, Woody. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

copyedits
Thanks a million! I'll go through the article tomorrow, although I am confident you did a great job as usual. Very glad you found it informative, this period is both fascinating and little-known. An A-class nomination is certainly coming. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  00:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I might have taken out some s on the end of toward(s) before I realized that you were writing this in Brit English (towards, eastwards, etc.) You might keep an eye out for those. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Erzherzog ACR
PArsec has fixed your probs. How long do ACR's run, usually? Buggie111 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two weeks or so. I'm just doing a CE on the Habsburg....I'll check on Parsec's fixes in a minute.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth. I meant to ask you this earlier, but lost track of it. I can easily add a short description of the A-H fleet at the outbreak of the war, but don't know where it would fit the best. Any ideas? Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add it under service history, to put the ships (habsburg and Erzherzog...) into the context of the navy itself. This will help the comprehensiveness issues, I think.  Then a little more of the overall AH navy activity in the War itself, was it so limited due to coal shortage or what?  Also, a clearer expression of the Breslau etc escape--and the ships' roles in it.  The Habsburg is not as well written as it could be, and it needs greater clarity about the sisters.  Only names one, but refers to "sisters" plural.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given info about the size. Buggie111 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GA passed
2009-10 Duquesne Dukes men's basketball team passed GA. Already let the user know, but wanted to let you know also. Chris (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Louis Klein
Hi, apologies about that, don't know what happened. I even remember reading it back then, anyway, the assessments have been completed now. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Siege
Ruth, I think we need to change the Poppelsdorf date. Potthoff makes it Nov 14th, rather than Nov 4thd, and Potthoff's date is also backed up by some other sources, e.g. http://biene.bonn.de/poppelsd/popburg.htm http://ema.bonn.de/weiher/historisches.htm http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/rbsc2/misc/Bib_4730128.pdf -- JN 466  23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting Nominations Viewer
In response to this comment you made, might I suggest checking out Nominations Viewer, which compacts FAC nominations by making them look more like the following screenshot. <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi Gary. The only one I have for anything wikipedia-ish is this one, related to the Anomie script. /* CSS rules for use with User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js. To include these rules,
 * insert the following into your Special:Mypage/monobook.js (yes, monobook.js not monobook.css):

importStylesheet('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css

A                 { color:#002bb8; } A.stubcls         { color:#5c2bb8; } A.new             { color:#cc2200; } A.redirect        { color:#00bb00; } A.self-redirect   { background-color:#88ff88; } A.disambiguation  { background-color:#ffff88; } A.deletion        { color:#ff0088; } A:visited         { color:#00155c; } A.stubcls:visited { color:#552c50; } A.new:visited     { color:#aa4444; } A.redirect:visited { color:#227722; } A.deletion:visited { color:#cc2277; } A.broken-redirect { color:#cc2200; background-color:#88ff88; } A.broken-redirect:visited { color:#aa4444; background-color:#88ff88; }
 * Please keep the linkback comment so I can know who is using this.

A.image.redirect        > IMG { outline:2px solid #00bb00; } /* Doesn't work, because the generated link goes to the redirect target */ A.image.nonfree-media   > IMG { outline:3px double #ff0000; } A.image.deletion        > IMG { outline:2px solid #ff0088; } A.image.deletion:visited > IMG { outline-color:#cc2277; }

/* Images can be inserted after links with the ":after" pseudo-element, although this doesn't work in IE <8. */ /* A.featured-content:after { content:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Featured_article_star.svg/12px-Featured_article_star.svg.png); } A.protection-edit-sysop-indef:after { content:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Padlock-red.svg/12px-Padlock-red.svg.png); } A.nonimage.protection-create-sysop-indef:after { content:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Padlock-skyblue.svg/12px-Padlock-skyblue.svg.png); }

/* If you're wanting to put multiple images after, you'll need to give specific A.featured-content.protection-edit-sysop-indef:after { content:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Featured_article_star.svg/12px-Featured_article_star.svg.png) url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Padlock-red.svg/12px-Padlock-red.svg.png); }
 * rules for each combination, something like this:

Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

solutions

 * Try removing everything in your skin.js except for my script. Let's first see if that works. It almost certainly should work, especially in the latest version of Firefox, regardless of operating system, etc. Don't forget to purge. <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * okay, did that, and purged, and I cannot see any difference in how the page looks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I'm not sure what to do next. It's definitely something with your setup. I guess, make sure you got Firefox 3.6.3 installed. That's about all I can say. <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the version I have. should the page automatically look like the screen shot, or do I have to do something else to make it so? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

the only thing that seems to have changed: at the top of the list is (normal view · [javascript:toggleAllNoms(1,%2041) expand all]) but if I click on expand or collapse, nothing changes on the page, just the title of the link. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After importing the script, no further steps are necessary to enable its features. It looks like the script kind-of works for you. Does the script act the same way on WP:FAR, WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, and WP:FPC (i.e. it does not work, except for the fact that it adds the "normal view" text to the page)? <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 21:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I click on "expand all", it simply changes the text from "expand all" to "collapse all", but nothing actually happens to the entries. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What Firefox extensions do you have installed? Do you have Greasemonkey installed? You must have something that's affecting the page's layout, so my script cannot "find" the nominations and therefore cannot modify them in any way. My script has clearly "found" the line that says "Nominations", though. <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jean Ambroise Baston de Lariboisière
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Michel Ordener
Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
<div class="usermessage" style="webkit-border-radius-topleft:20px;webkit-border-radius-bottomright:20px; border-radius-topleft:20px;border-radius-bottomright:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px;-moz-border-radius-bottomright:20px; padding: 6px; background: none;text-align: left;width:550px;margin:auto;border:2px solid silver;color:black;font-family:calibri"> Hello,. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing this template. (This notice was added 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC) by  — fetch ·  comms  )


 * Replied there.  — fetch ·  comms   02:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Neuroanthocyanosis
Sorry, this had fallen off my radar, it looks OK now, I'll do a final check <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Etienne Hastrel de Rivedoux
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
As someone who has used Wikipedia for class projects, I thought you might be interested in commenting on this, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Hambright
Hello Auntieruth,

I believe that Frederick Hambright is ready for re-evaluation. I shortened the lead section significantly, fixed the grammatical errors, removed the facts from the family history website (or replaced it for a more reliable source), formatted the Western North Carolina reference correctly, and wrote more about the Tryon Resolves. If its still not ready, I would appreciate any feedback you have.

Thanks-

(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Johann Jakob von Wunsch
Hi Ruth, I wanted to let you know I've reviewed Johann Jakob von Wunsch (the link is here). The article is pretty good, but there are a few issues I'd like to see fixed before I'll be ready to pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They should be good. I don't know the son's name. and I cannot even find the reference to his being killed at Peterwalde now. So I've worked him in elsewhere. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy editing on Gillian Welch
I really appreciate your help with the article. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to improve the article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Yucatan
Hello, I know you did with good intention but you destroyed the article on the Republic of Yucatan. The article was a translation of the article in Spanish, which is qualified as a good article, You made edits and remove information (according to you irrelevant, irrelevant to you but important part of the history of the Republic) you lose the entire context of the history of the Republic.

I repeat, the article was based entirely on the Spanish version, qualified as a good article, and I agree it needed a fitness to expressions of English language, but that can only be done by someone with English native language, and those who did the article are native Spanish language and we just learned English, besides, all the information in the article were you put tags [citation needed], were taken from electronic sources added in the article, as you can understand, there isn't enough information in English of the Republic, and that is why we added electronic sources in Spanish where we took the information.

Is a shame, if I were you I would have left a message to the person who released the article exposing your questions before moving all the article that surely your not fully understood. Unfortunately that happens a lot in Wikipedia. Hpav7 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was listed on the Guild of Copy Editor's Request board for editing. Bwryan2006 (talk) put it there  with this comment

"This article is in dire need of grammatical correction. In its current format, it looks like someone copied and pasted a translation from Babelfish in order to pass it as an article. I've flagged for copyediting already, any additional help would be most welcome."

If you translate an article, a simple cut and paste of a mechanical (Babelfish, google) translation is insufficient. It is not necessarily our practice to post questions before hand, otherwise we would get no copy editing done. The article may have been a good article in the Spanish Wiki, but its translation was a unintelligible even to someone relatively well informed in the historical context.

If you wish to improve the article, please feel free to do so. It's fine to add citations from Spanish sources to an article in English. There simply were not enough citations, and the editor made claims that were unsubstantiated in the citations that were there. The sources were moderately reliable: I doubt that President Fox's site would hold up to the neutrality test, however. If you are not happy with the article, you are welcome to revert everything; I suggest you find someone in the Project Mexico with appropriate English skills to help you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Temescal Canyon High School
You did a great job on cleaning up that article,Temescal Canyon High School (Lake Elsinore, California)!! It really needed some work. Thanks. DavidPickett (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Crinius
Wow, thanks, how did you find this? I'm amazed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * google.de :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

John Ormsby
I have written some on the information i could find on John Ormsby. I have pictures of his burial site as well as the streets in the South Side that are named after his daughters. I also have a picture of the town sign for Mt. Oliver. I took all of these myself so there won't be any copyright issues. I wanted to get your opinion on what i've done so far as well as some direction for how to tie things up. Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ormsby_(Pittsburgh)

Ragfin (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Siege
Ruth, I'm stopping for now (have to get back to my day job), so if you want to go through and tidy up my prose and ref formatting, you can now do so without edit conflicts. :) I have made all the major content additions I'd planned to make, but I will still produce a simple map of the castle, showing Ferdinand's gun positions, the position of the mine, and the castle's main buildings, based on Potthoff 2009. Best, -- JN 466  22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. I'm going to be gone over the weekend, so feel free to continue! Looks good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodie. Have just replied to you on my talk page as well. -- JN 466  22:30, 3 June 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) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gunther E. Rothenberg
Mifter (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Grafenwöhr
Please see Talk:Grafenwöhr. I added a note which makes a suggestion as well as expands on one of your original suggestions on the symbosis between military bases and civilian towns. The only article that I could find which remotely connects to the military base/cililian town symbosis is the Town and Gown article. The actors are different, but many of the actions and conflicts are similar. Your comments?--TGC55 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

John Ormsby Question
I have finished the content of the article i'm pretty sure. Now I would like to add the pictures I took but I am having a hard time uploading the images to the Commons. And from there I am still not quite sure how to get the images into my article the way I want them. Also, you mentioned the links not being in there properly but i'm not sure how to change them. If you think there is any chance of you being on campus soon maybe we could meet to iron these last details out. Thanks! Ragfin (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left instructions on the article page about how to do the links. Check the article for examples, and check the talk page for specific instructions.  I'm not sure what the problem is about uploading the image.  the directions are specific.  Where are you running into problems? I'm not planning to be on campus --it would be a special trip. I'll do it if we cannot resolve issues over internet.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I succeeded in adding two photos. I might need some help with placement for the second one. I also changed the links. I will look into the other sources you mentioned and using them to add to the article. I will let you know if I run into any trouble. Thank you. Ragfin (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or <font color="#006600" face="Felix Titling">Diannaa  <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! <font color="#006600" face="Felix Titling">Diannaa  <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">TALK 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Picutre of the Year
Hi Auntieruth55, how about voting for Picture of the Year 2009? I saw you are eligible to vote. Best Hekerui (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews
Bonjour. Please let me know when you want me to finalize the reviews. Thanks and good luck. Are people in the US also excited about the World Cup and how do people think about the oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Most people here think that the president should take a stronger position against the oil companies MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer
I emailed you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Problem with file
Hi, Auntie Ruth. The base map layer of File:Army of the Danube Advance 1799.svg was linked to a file that is likely on your hard drive; as such, when uploaded to Commons, it cannot find that file anymore (it will be trying to find a file there, which it would not be able to). Typically if you wish to display an inserted jpg or some other image file (except SVGs) in a SVG, you should import it first (like you did) and use Extensions -> Images -> Embed images to imprint that inserted image into the file in its format. However, this will blow up the file size, making it the same size or (most of the time) larger than the inserted image. Hence, this practice is often discouraged for SVG.

I have made the files below for your perusal; hopefully they will serve, if not feel free to tweak them a bit. I could also help to create something specific from these files for your needs (just need more information on what you would like to have, feel free to ask), although that may take a bit of time these days (a bit busy).

Could you fill in sources (books and such) for the "routes" in File:Convergence of French Republic and Habsburg armies on Ostrach near the Danube in 1799.svg? Jappalang (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * this makes sense. The files are beautiful!! How do you get the text to go on a path?  I'll want to play with this a bit more. It seems ridiculous that I have such trouble.  I have a bunch of maps to make for my dissertation, so I've got to figure this out.  I'll give this a go!  And yes I will add in the source information.  auntieruth (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think you might be confused by my "convert text to path"; what I did was to convert the fonts into "paths" (free form vectors).  This prevents certain issues browsers have in displaying Inkscape fonts (you might notice sometimes certain SVGs are displayed with jagged or misaligned texts even though they appear fine in Inkscape).  Converting those fonts into "paths" help resolve the issue, although they change the text into "graphics" (hence the "words" can no longer be edited with the text tool).  To convert a text to paths, select the word, then select Path -> Object to Path.


 * I think you might be thinking of making the text follow some line instead of lying straight (i.e. bending it to some line). To make text follow the curves of a line (path), you can follow this tutorial.  However, note that sometimes, bending text along a line just would not work (i.e. looks weird and hard to read).  Jappalang (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ramsay Weston Phipps
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review Jean-Marie Defrance
I would like to pass the article soon. I had left just a few minor remarks on the review page. Please have a look and let me know. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A talk page stalker replies
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Louis Klein
I will look into this ASAP. Sorry for the dealy MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All done! I will have a look at your other articles. It may take some time, sorry. A lot going on in my life now MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review
I started a GA review at Talk:Michel Ordener/GA1. Ucucha 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Contest entry for Michel Ordener
Hi Ruth, I have verified the contest results for June. I had to leave Michel Ordener as a B because the GAN closed after the end of the June contest (only by 5 hours, but it wouldn't be fair on others if I let it through). Apologies, I understand that this is no fault of your own. It will be eligible for entry in the July contest. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was before midnight, but here (EST). No problem. and I completely spaced out entering Francis Loraine Petre! auntieruth (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have left a note there. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege
Hi Ruth, I have drawn the graphic now and added it to the article. I have also gone through the prose one more time. As far as I am concerned, it now looks good; if I were to change anything, I might reduce the coverage of the wider issues of the Cologne war a little, just so we stay focused on the article topic, but it may well be fine as it is. If you're happy with the graphic and current status, then I'd say we can proceed to FAC. -- JN 466  13:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping fingers crossed. :) -- JN 466  12:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You might add a line saying you are indeed a conominator or something. auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added my sig at the top; may add a line later if you think it is necessary. I've addressed a couple of queries regarding sourcing at FAC (missing ISBNs and such); there are also a couple of reference formatting queries which I have left to you to respond to, as I know that you like to stick to your citation style. -- JN 466  03:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did we rename the article? There was a second siege two years later, so probably needed the date. auntieruth (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only just noticed your question here; I assumed you had done that. I now see that it was another user: . I am happy to revert back to the old title. I am not familiar with the siege that occurred two years after; we could mention it in the article. Who conducted the siege, and were they besieging the village, or what was left of the castle?
 * And might it be worth posting a link to the FAC at a MILHIST noticeboard, just to attract a couple more reviewers? -- JN 466  15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay leaving the title. It was a minor siege, and if there is an article, it should probably be incorporated as part of the second siege of Bonn.  I'll post a link.  auntieruth (talk) 17:38, 5 July 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) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

London Gazette again
London Gazette page numbering runs for a whole year, starting at 1 in the first issue of any given year, and increasing from there - that is the number which should be quoted in a reference, not simply counting the first page of an issue as 1. I've fixed this in Petre, but I don't know if you've created any other articles where this would be an issue. I repsect you decision not to use the template, though I really do think it makes life esier in the long run, but I still can't see why you don't simply include a link to the relevant page. This meant that in order to correct the page numbers I had to go back to the search engine and look almost from scratch (the issue number does make life slightly simpler I grant you). David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how to use the template. Did you add it?  auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, after the discussions last time, I assumed you'd decided not to use it. It's fairly straightforward you just need the parameters, issue=takes issue number, startpage=first number of a page range, and this is the page which will actually be opened, endpage=last number of a page range - display only, date=issue date-I tend to take the date displayed in the top section of hte screen with the navigation controls, this isn't necessarily the same as the date a supplement was issued, and if the url indicates the page is from a supplement, the url will have supplements followed by /page number, rather than pages/page number, you also need to set supp=yes -in fact any non empty strign casuses the same behaviour, some people just put x  David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you convinced me in this case to use it, but I wasn't sure how to do it. I'll get to it later today or tomorrow.  Thanks.  auntieruth (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder
Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Siege of Godesberg
Ruth, I can not locate an A-class review for the article despite claims on the talk page the article has passed an A-class review. Did you ever nominated for A-class review? If so then please let me know so I can find the ACR and get it linked to in the milhist template. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've created a redirect for the milhist template pointing to the article's ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648–1815
OK, I think that I have fixed the problem, but the last check is to have you eyeball and make sure that everything went through alright. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yessss! looks good. thanks! auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Minister-President vote
Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

mary jo kilroy
Can you give me a quick opinion on Mary Jo Kilroy? Compared to other GA, this one is a little short of reaching the goal posts, I believe. Yet the man writing it seems nice. RIPGC (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Tony is a terrific guy. Help him with the writing. auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please come revisit Talk:Mary Jo Kilroy/GA3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am so disappointed. It is close but no cigar.  Just a few cigar widths away though.  I didn't want to be mean so I'm glad you stepped in.  It is 93% there.  Maybe give it another week or two?RIPGC (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Weyden
Hello. In May you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. In this case the source of the text does not appear to be Wikipedia, but due to the lack of fact-checking by this publisher it still cannot be considered to be reliable. I'm removing a lot of similar references. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege
Hi Ruth, we have a new round of comments at FAC. I've responded to a few of them, but am under work pressure ... could you have a look? -- JN 466  19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, Sandy has restarted the FAC, and I've asked for clarification here. -- JN 466  01:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ramsay Weston Phipps
Hi Ruth, I've started the GA review for Ramsay Weston Phipps. There are a few comments, so I've put the article on hold. I'm in no rush, so just let me know how long you think you will need to complete them. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, there's just one or two points left that I think need clarification. Also, I made a couple of tweaks. Please check you agree with them. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. Well done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Milhist contest for July
Hi, Auntieruth, I'm busy verifying the enteries in the Mil hist article contest for July. I've moved one of yours (Petre) from the 31 July scoring period to the August scoring period as it hadn't received an assessment in July. Rather than simply scoring 0 pts in July and affecting your contest average, I thought it best to enter it in the next contest as it will be eligible for points there if it is improved and assessed beyond B class in August. Please let me know if this an issue. If you don't want it entered in August contest, please just simply remove. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Siege FAC
Hi Ruth, Siege has made it at last. Thanks for all your great work, and for inviting me in on the article! -- JN 466  20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gunther E. Rothenberg
Hi Ruth. I had reviewed this article for GA about a week ago, but forgot to drop you a line here, I'm sorry. There's only a couple of things that need to be fixed - the review is here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig von Wurmb
I recently ran across this PDF, which told me that Ludwig von Wurmb was way more interesting than I expected him to be. Since some of your work is in Napeolonic-era stuff, I thought you might also find him interesting. (The PDF also has enough bits to stub in a few Hesse-Kassel military awards.)  Magic ♪piano 01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article
Hi, Ruth! It's Kate Miller and Rachael Adams. We have our article up on Wikipedia (and have also emailed it to you), but are having some issues navigating Wikipedia and formatting our article. For example, we can't get our references to show up in our article. Any help you could give us would be greatly appreciated! Our article is entitled, "Preventing Bullying in the Classroom."

Thanks!!!

RachaelandKate (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Walter Ohmsen
Are you interested? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help again. Your changes look appropriate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Milhist coordinator elections
You should stand, you really should. We need more coordinateuses, especially of your high calibre. Roger Davies talk 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

John Kourkouas A-class review
Hello again! As promised some time ago, the second A-class nomination for John Kourkouas is open. And thanks again for your help with copyediting. Constantine  ✍  06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator?
The military history wikiproject will soon open the September 2010 coordinator elections to determine who among us will serve on the X Tranche, the coordinator tranche beginning 28 September of this month. The current coordinators have offered up the names of a limited number of editors who we believe would make good coordinators, and your name was included in the list. Therefore, I am leaving this message on behalf of the current milhist coordinators to encourage you to run for the position of coordinator. If you have any questions or comments about the position you are welcome to ask any members of the current coordinator tranche, we would be happy to answer your questions. Note that while this message is being left to encourage you to run for the position you are under no obligation to do so, and if you decide not to run this decision will not be held against you now or at any point in the future.

On belhalf of the Military history Coordinator IX Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Auntie! This is just a poke to remind you to add your name to the election page in the next 22 hours, should you desire. I really think you should run. Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Matthäus Merian
Category:Matthäus Merian, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SeveroTC 08:29, 13 September 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 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A copyedit request
Hi Auntie! If you have time, could you take a look at Arnold's expedition to Quebec? I think it's mostly ready for FAC (at least content-wise), but the prose could use a set of independent eyes. (I've had my prose ripped to shreds at FAC even when I thought it was decent...) If you don't have time, no problem, I can ask others.  Magic ♪piano 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're busy, fear not -- I'll get someone else to look. Good luck on the dissertation (something I never had the pleasure (?) of dealing with).  Magic ♪piano 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at the lead. Very interesting.  First comment I'd have at FA would be the references to civilization (or lack of it).  There is a native civilization in there, so ....  I'd suggest referring to the colonial settlements, or outposts of colonial settlements.  If you want to discuss the problems of white men tracking through Indian territory, then in the body, you might refer to their feelings of isolation from European-style settlements to which they were accustomed, or some such.  I'd be wary of referring to uncivilized or untracked.  It wasn't.  It is simply that the Europeans didn't recognize the civilizations/tracks that were there, and couldn't read them.  auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Auntieruth, just wanted to say thanks for your vote at the Milhist elections. Let me know if I can ever do anything to help, and see you around. Ranger Steve  Talk  19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I believe you have nothing to worry about. How is your dissertation progressing? I just took a break in real life and went on a pilgrimage from Porto in Portugal to Santiago de Compostella and on to Finisterre, one of the best experiences in my life. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

French–German enmity
You tagged that article as disputed almost a year ago, but there is no trace of a dispute on the talk page or in edit comments. An IP asked about that, and I don't know what to reply. To me it looks as if overall the article is reasonably balanced. There may be many factual inaccuracies there that I wouldn't notice, and it may be giving more attention to the German views of the relations than to the French views, but it doesn't look like a nationalist hack piece to me. Could you please comment on the talk page so that any problems can be attacked and the tag removed or replaced by a few inline or section tags. Thanks. Hans Adler 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon closer examination the article was pretty skewed towards a German POV and had some other problems. I have made various extensive changes and am going to continue my work. The above message is obsolete. Hans Adler 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

How goes it?
You finally writing your dissertation? Best, -- JN 466  02:34, 18 November 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) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New Quehanna images
I uploaded some nice new images of Quehanna Wild Area from Flickr, and swapped in one new image. I am not sure which other image to swap out (if any), so I started a discussion at Talk:Quehanna Wild Area‎ if you'd like to weigh in. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:25, 2 December 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) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Meilleurs vœux !


Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555">Talk and <font color="#2C1608">C. 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

The unification of Germany into a politically and administratively integrated nation state officially occurred on 18 January 1871 at the Versailles Palace's Hall of Mirrors in France. Princes of the German states gathered there to proclaim Wilhelm of Prussia as Emperor Wilhelm of the German Empire after the French capitulation in the Franco-Prussian War. Unofficially, the transition of most of the German-speaking populations into a federated organization of states occurred over nearly a century of experimentation. Unification exposed several glaring religious, linguistic, and cultural differences between and among the inhabitants of the new nation, suggesting that 1871 really only represents one moment in a continuum of the larger unification processes. Historians debate whether or not Otto von Bismarck, the Minister President of Prussia, had a master-plan to expand the North German Confederation of 1866 to include the remaining independent German states into a single entity, or whether he simply sought to expand the power of the Kingdom of Prussia. They conclude that factors in addition to the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik led a collection of early modern polities to reorganize political, economic, military and diplomatic relationships in the 19th century. By establishing a Germany without Austria, the political and administrative unification in 1871 at least temporarily solved the problem of German dualism. (more...)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Jean-Louis-Brigitte Espagne
Hello Auntieruth55 and a an excellent 2011 to you! I am writing to suggest a new biographic article that you could write; it is in line with the ones you wrote about DeFrance and Walther and it's actually one of the very great heavy cavalry commanders of the Napoleonic Wars. I am very surprised we have nothing on him so far. I am currently busy working on two other articles, so, if you have any sources regarding Jean-Louis-Brigitte Espagne, this would be a greatly needed article. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Chauvel article
The section on Sinai and Palestine is weak. Unfortunately Hawkeye has undone just about every improvement. I have already approached him on a number of occasions without success. As you were involved in the A class review of this article could you please have a look and perhaps suggest a way forward? [Sorry I neglected to sign this when it was first posted.] --Rskp (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Brougham Castle
I just noticed this edit (old, I know) and I was wondering if you remembered where you got the figures for the inflation from? Nev1 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 14:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Hi
Are you still around here? I haven't seen you editing for a while. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still here. trying to finish the dissertation.  Are you still willing to check out a couple of things for me in a German library?  I'm looking for some information on the regiment that included the Swabian contingent in 1796.  I have regimental information.  auntieruth (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop me an email and I will check if indeed I can help you. I need to know what you want and where you want me to look. The where will determine whether or not I can help you? But I will try to make an attempt. Good luck MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

General Espagne
Thanks for your reply. Hope to see you again soon on wikipedia. In the meantime, good luck with your dissertation. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:37, 8 February 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) 15:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cologne War referencing
I was doing some work on that article, and was reverted (see the history). I have discussed this on User talk:Ucucha, and have not found the reasoning satisfactory - please note that I had not finished what I had intended doing, and was adding links. I wondered what you thought. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:24, 15 March 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) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nansouty
Hi Auntieruth, thanks for your message and very pertinent comments. I'll keep working on it too, starting with this weekend and I this we can get it up to the right level for another A-Class Review in a short while. Thanks for sticking to it, I really appreciate that. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I don't respond in what seems like a timely manner, drop me an email. :)  auntieruth (talk) 16:54, 30 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) 01:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:06, 4 May 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) 21:53, 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) 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:46, 3 July 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) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupied France 1872.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Occupied France 1872.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupied France 1872.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Occupied France 1872.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupied France 1872.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Occupied France 1872.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:03, 20 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) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:07, 21 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) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Versierselen van de Ordevan Sint Hubertus.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Versierselen van de Ordevan Sint Hubertus.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea

University of Alberta

jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Smith Armies of the Napoleonic era.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Smith Armies of the Napoleonic era.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated in my last message, here are five short questions about your user page that I would like you to answer. These will help me to understand your motivations for creating a user page such as yours. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.

5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace? Yes

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times? I don't know. Several thousand edits? At least 100 articles?

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page? Competency, approachability, interest.

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it? Yes, I have rec'd a lot of feedback. Some of it is in [|this page] and some of it is listed here [|on my main page]. Feedback is essential for scholarship.

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate? No, not really.

Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. Please respond by October 1st so that I have time to properly read your responses. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ADDITONAL INFORMATION

Background

•	I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.

•	I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.

Purpose

•	My research is about how people present themselves online.

•	I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.

Study Procedures

•	With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.

•	I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet.

•	I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.

•	Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm

Benefits

•	There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.

•	I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.

•	There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.

Risk

•	There is no direct risk for participating in this research.

Voluntary Participation

•	You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.

•	You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.

•	If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.

Confidentiality

•	This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.

•	A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.

•	Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.

•	Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. It will not be sent by email or stored online.

•	I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.

•	If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.

Further Information

•	If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.

INDICATING CONSENT

By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:

•	That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.

•	That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).

•	That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.

•	That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.

•	That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.

•	That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).

•	That you agree to participate.

Thank-you again!

Main page appearance: Hermann Detzner
This is a note to let the main editors of Hermann Detzner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 16, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Hermann Detzner (1882–1970) was an officer in the German colonial security force in Kamerun and German New Guinea, as well as a surveyor, an engineer, an adventurer, and a writer. In early 1914, the German government sent Detzner to explore and chart the interior of Kaiser-Wilhelmsland, the imperial protectorate on the island of New Guinea. When World War I broke out in Europe, he was well into the interior, without radio contact. He refused to surrender to Australian troops when they occupied German New Guinea, concealing himself in the jungle with a band of approximately 20 soldiers. For four years, Detzner and his troops provocatively marched through the bush. He explored areas of the Guinean interior formerly unseen by Europeans and surrendered in full dress uniform, flying the Imperial flag, to Australian forces in January 1919. He wrote a book about his adventures that achieved notoriety in Great Britain and Germany, entered three printings, and was translated into French, English, Finnish and Swedish. He received a position in the Imperial Colonial Archives, and appeared frequently on the lecture circuit throughout the 1920s. In the late 1920s, scientific portions of his book were discredited. In 1932, he admitted that he had mixed fact and fiction and, after that time, eschewed public life. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 14 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) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:45, 29 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) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:20, 21 December 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] 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Duerenstein an der Danube.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Duerenstein an der Danube.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:52, 2 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] 22:39, 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] 23:42, 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] 09:31, 21 February 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] 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany unification
Theres alot of infromation about the Unification of Germany, but if you had to sum it all up in a short paragraph, what would you include (main points of it all).. im searching for answers that relate to 'Germany before 1918 Unification' thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.153.245 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 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] 23:50, 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] 14:22, 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] 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunther E. Rothenberg GA
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Georg Solti become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 24 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] 09:05, 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] 00:39, 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) 08:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * G'day, Ruth, sorry to bug you, but as you expressed some intention to vote, I just wanted to remind you that voting for the Milhist co-ord election closes on 28 Sep 12. There are many good candidates running who still need support to qualify as co-ords for next time. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the nudge!  I'm up to my eyeballs in revisions, so hadn't noticed.  :)  auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ruth. Good luck with finalising your dissertation! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 25 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] 20:24, 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) 02:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Coming soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Cologne War
This is a note to let the main editors of Cologne War know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Cologne War (1583–88) devastated the Electorate of Cologne, a historical ecclesiastical principality of the Holy Roman Empire, present-day North-Rhine-Westphalia, in Germany. The war occurred within the context of the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the subsequent Counter-Reformation, and concurrently with the Dutch Revolt and the French Wars of Religion. The conflict tested the principle of ecclesiastical reservation, which had been included in the religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). This principle excluded, or "reserved", the ecclesiastical territories of the Holy Roman Empire from the application of cuius regio, eius religio, or "who rules, his religion", as the primary means to determine the religion of a territory. The conflict coincided with the Dutch Revolt, 1568–1648, encouraging participation of the rebellious Dutch provinces and the Spanish. The Cologne War resulted in the consolidation of Wittelsbach authority in northwestern German territories and in a Catholic revival on the lower Rhine. Importantly, it also set a precedent for outside intervention in German religious and dynastic conflicts. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 November 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) 01:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> history of Germany

Thank you, danke sehr, for quality articles on the history of Germany, such as Cologne War and Unification of Germany, as a history geek with eccentricities, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau


The article Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable, titles like countess no longer valid in Germany, notability questioned over a week ago and no reply.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:50, 19 December 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) 09:27, 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) 13:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. j⚛e deckertalk 18:51, 19 February 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) 07:41, 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) 04:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau - TFA on 13th April 2013
In case you don't spot it from your watchlist, I have scheduled Johann von Klenau to run as "Today's Featured Article" on 13th April, the 255th anniversary of his birth. The blurb is at Today's featured article/April 13, 2013. Regards, BencherliteTalk 07:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up! :)  auntieruth (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 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) 15:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 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) 13:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 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) 09:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Hi ! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
 * We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
 * Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
 * WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
 * Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: War of the Bavarian Succession
This is a note to let the main editors of War of the Bavarian Succession know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The War of the Bavarian Succession (July 1778 – May 1779) was fought between the Habsburg Monarchy and a Saxon–Prussian alliance to prevent the Habsburg acquisition of the Duchy of Bavaria. There were only a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand soldiers died from disease and starvation. It began after Maximilian Joseph (pictured) died, leaving no children. Charles IV Theodore, his heir, also had no children to succeed him; Charles II August, had a claim as Charles Theodore's heir presumptive. Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II wanted Bavaria, to expand his family's influence. For Frederick II of Prussia, Joseph's claim threatened the Hohenzollern ascendancy in German politics, but he saw no point in pursuing hostilities. Frederick Augustus I of Saxony wanted to preserve the territorial integrity of the Duchy for his brother-in-law, Charles August, and had no interest in seeing the Habsburgs acquire additional territory on his borders. France became involved to maintain the balance of power. Finally, Catherine II of Russia's threat to intervene on the side of Prussia with 50,000 Russian troops forced Joseph to reconsider his position, leading to the Treaty of Teschen in May 1779. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 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) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession
Hi Ruth,

Congratulations on getting the War of the Bavarian Succession article up on the main page! I have a question about the article, which I have stated here. Your comments there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 02:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 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) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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) 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 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) 22:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 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) 05:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> history of Germany

Thank you, danke sehr, for quality articles on the history of Germany, such as Cologne War and Unification of Germany, as a history geek with eccentricities, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 319th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

About Mr. Bee, the lists, and the lack of fun
Hello,

I have benefited greatly from Mr. Bee's critiques and help; indeed, I have been grateful for this, and have spent many hours correcting the list in question in response to his comments. However, his arrogant statement that WP has the right to demand that I jettison my personal ethics in order to get an article promoted is a form of emotional extortion. So is his repeated insistence that I invent statistics. His indifference to the fact that some of his suggestions will wipe out the lead on eight allied lists is irrational, as well as injurious to Wikipedia.

If this had been my first run-in with this type of inventive rulemaking during assessment, I might have toughed it out. However, the constant contemptuous disregard that has been consistently displayed whenever I note instances of assessment procedure contradicting general overall WP policy has become so frustrating that I no longer enjoy writing for WP. I cannot get the assessors to even recognize they have problems. When I realized this, I settled for a policy of slavish obedience to whatever whims assessors have dreamt up. As can be seen by this case, that doesn't work either.

I am a professional writer who has donated his daily writing to WP for over five years. I built the list in question, as well as its eight associated lists, entailing researching and collating over 1,800 names. These nine lists are complete, and can be completely cited. The smaller ones may even be promotable under the assessors' requirement that X length of list needs Y length of lead. I haven't bothered wasting my time mentioning this ludicrous inconsistency to the assessing bureaucrats for them to ignore.

I have also created over 900 articles for WP. Last time I checked, I was the 1,432nd most active Wikipedian in number of edits. I am at the point where I could start pushing some biographies up to FA standards. But why bother? There is no assurance that my diligence will be rewarded with anything other than stressful disappointment.

The fun is gone. So am I, at least concerning lists. When my daily writing stint comes up, I still ponder whether to work on articles to push up the quality scale. If I can ever do that without a feeling of sinking disappointment, I may once again write for WP. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ship articles

 * Hi Auntieruth55, you are of course welcome to repair the flaws. I am not aware of any jargon, but then I wouldn't be given that I work in the area and am used to its vocabulary. You suggest that I explain what HMS Apelles (1808) was doing during the Walcharen Expedition, or what HMS Merope (1808) was doing during her time blockading. The problem is that without going to the log books of the vessels (which I cannot physically do, should those be available, and which Wikipedia discourages - no original research), one cannot know the answers to your queries. The items from the London Gazette or Lloyd's List that I cite generally give no more info than that which I include in the article. So I can know that Merope was at Walcharen at some point, but unless she is singled out for a mention in dispatches, which distinction is extremely rare, I cannot know more than that. I would still rather provide the info and the link than discard the info because I do not know more. As for pronouns, although I may miss some instances, I try to follow the grammatical rule that a pronoun refers to the last noun or name that precedes it. Thus, if I write, "Merope captured the privateer. She was armed with six guns and had a crew of 70 men." The pronoun "she" then refers to privateer, as it should. I tried for a while to use the 18th Century convention of using the pronoun "she" to refer to the British vessel and "he" to the enemy vessel, but that proved difficult to implement and more confusing to readers and I got push back. Keep in mind, like one of your previous commenters, I have no interest in producing "Good Articles" or "Featured Articles"; the marginal cost greatly exceeds the marginal benefit, especially on these minor vessels. I am trying to link to all the electronically available info, and that is all. In doing so, I am producing an article that is more comprehensive, and more accurate, than any single source, including some of the definitive sources on these vessels such as Colledge, or Winfield. Your mileage may differ. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, this makes some sense, but the text is still confusing, which I cannot fix, since I don't know the jargon. "Merope captured the privateer. She was armed with six guns and had a crew of 70 men."  How about Merope captured the privateer, which was armed with six guns and carried a crew of 70 men.  These sort of changes, for example, would make a difference in readability.  auntieruth (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * take a loot at Merope and see if that makes sense. You'll need to resolve if she was crocus class or cruizer class.  looks like Crocus is right.  auntieruth (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 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) 00:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: pleas to return
If you folks ever develop a written checklist(s) of A-List, A-Class, Featured Article, and Featured List requirements that can be referred to, I would give serious consideration to returning because I could pre-edit my work. However, I am not about to undergo any more "assessments via ambush".

The last assessment I was involved made no changes in perceptible to our reader. For this, I spent five years accumulating data to ensure a complete list, and a month's unsuccessful monkeying with code.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Assessment by ambush" is basically an unfair system of random requirements, for which the newbie cannot prepare. If the excuse for not codifying requirements is that they are constantly evolving, well, so are Wikipedia's articles. If the articles can be written down subject to change, so can the checklist.

Right now, the assessment system is swamped. A checklist would help alleviate that problem. Reading through the checklist would give pause to the unprepared, and delay nominations that are bound to fail until they are truly ready. The actual assessments that are nominated could be processed much more quickly. Better prepared nominations would lessen the assessors' work loads, and speed up the assessment process. Cripes, assessments might even become sort of fun.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
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) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 14:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
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) 22:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
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) 15:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Milhist co-ordinator election
G'day, Ruth, not sure if you are keen or very active at the moment, but have you thought about running in the Milhist co-ordinator election this year? We need a few more bodies in the line if we are going to complete our frontage this year, and with your experience I think you would be a good candidate. Nominations close at the end of 14 September, so if you are keen you would need to nominate soon. The nomination page is here: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014. Cheers and have a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rupert, haven't been very active recently. Am spending a lot of time rewriting my diss in the hope of finding a publisher, and I'm also looking for a job.  What would this entail? And what's the "frontage" this year.  auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, we need 12 good men and women this year. Main roles are commenting on the co-ord or project talk page regarding matters of policy and or planning, guiding new editors, helping tally reviews, assessing articles, helping out at A-class etc (but these aren't all requirements, just some things that you might get involved with). Good luck with finding the publisher - it sounds like you have a big year planned! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rupert, I did add myself to the lists last night, but it might be too late. Not sure.  At any rate, I've logged back in and started some editing and tackling of the backlog.  ;)  auntieruth (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:AustralianRupert I see that the election has some close calls in it and just wanted to let you know that I will not be upset/distressed/hysterical or in any way distracted at a tie going to someone else, if that person is really invested in being a coordinator. Just FYI....  auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ruth. I really appreciate you running. I think that as a group we are reasonably inclusive, we may end up having a group of 13 co-ords anyway if everyone passes the minimum threshold of 20...but we will see what the others think. Have a great weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rupert, that sounds good. Let me know what the need is, and pleae be assured that my nose won't be out of joint regardless.... :) auntieruth (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hochstadt
Just had a read and liked it ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hi Ruth, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. Thanks for standing and all the best for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian!! Lucky me. I expect instructions will follow on where to go and what to do?  auntieruth (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, the coord talk page has a handbook at the top for guidance, but of course always feel free to ask me or one of the other coords anything. Good to watchlist that coord page too if you haven't yet, so you can stay across discussions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Ruth, I'm very happy to see you hanging around Milhist again. Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Károlyi
You're wrong, see my response in Talk:Count Alexander Karolyi. Modern historiography and publications refer to him as "Sándor Károlyi". --77.234.87.226 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * try for some tact, please. :)  auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl Hans Lody
Thanks for your comments a month ago on Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1. There've been plenty of changes since then in response to reviews by several other editors. You had said that you would look forward to re-reading it later; could you possibly have a look and let me know what you think of it now? Prioryman (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * done. Let me know if you need something else.  auntieruth (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Waterloo
Could you let me know as soon as you have a list of relevant people, places, events, and such related to the battle? If I start working on featured pictures of Waterloo soon, I can probably get at least a couple up for the bicentennial date on the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinged
Hey Auntieruth, I've pinged you on my talk page over an AfD for an Russian army formed around the time of the French invasion of Russia. Would you be able to comment? I'm hoping you'll know more about the topic than I would! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

GAN Nordmann
Are we done? Thanks for your effort on this article MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * very good. template fixed, article added to the list.  I don't remember if I have to take it off the review list or not....?  auntieruth (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Waterloo project
Hi auntieruth, it seems like you've been away from military history for a while. Welcome back! Thanks for the invitation to the Waterloo project. If I get the urge to write something, I'll sign up. Lately, I've been interested in the 1792 to 1797 period and many times I've run across your pals Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf, Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg, Pierre Marie Barthélemy Ferino and others. Djmaschek (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * a few of my favorite articles. I've also been working on some of the battles and sieges in the period, basically attacking some of the stubs I'd created.  Ran into some of your work there too. :)  auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Battle of Schliengen is up for A-class review. Would you take a look?  auntieruth (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never assessed an A class before but I'll try. There is one thing. Please see my comment at the Battle of Schliengen talk page. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've addressed some or all of them.  Would you please take another look and update your comments/add support, note additional criticism, etc?  auntieruth (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bourdet ref
G'day, Ruth, I am just having a quick look at the Siege of Hüningen article. Currently there appears to be a ref to "Bourdet 1968, p. 217" but I can't seem to find the full bibliographic details. Would it be possible to dig this out and add it to the article? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Hüningen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Hüningen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate links
Hi,check User:Ucucha/duplinks. Very easy and does all the magic :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl Hans Lody red links
Re your suggestion that I should seek to fill in the red links on Carl Hans Lody, I've tackled Nachrichten-Abteilung - with any luck I should be able to get war treason done as well before the article runs as TFA on Thursday. Thanks for your assistance with the review. Prioryman (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

TFA
No I have not. I will read it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Hüningen
The article Siege of Hüningen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Hüningen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources
As a historian by training, what is your view on citing foreign language material? I have tried to explain my view here. The main author keeps removing the original German language titles from the article. I think this is bad practice as it gives the reader the false impression the reference is in English, which it isn't. Also if the reader would follow the ISBN number it would lead him to a reference which he may not associate with the perceived English title provided in the article. The author keeps stating that he feels it is not needed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Neuburg (1800)
The article Battle of Neuburg (1800) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Neuburg (1800) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Units
Being in Europe, this article should have metric primary, would it be possible to "flip" the conversions. Thanks Avi8tor (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  Siege of Godesberg, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 18 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  precious  again, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Louis Bastoul
 * added links pointing to Bonnet, Bethune, Moreau and Delmas


 * Battle of Schliengen
 * added links pointing to Riegel and Kaiserstuhl


 * Army of the Rhine and Moselle
 * added a link pointing to Delaborde

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> history of Germany

Thank you, danke sehr, for quality articles on the history of Germany, such as Cologne War and Unification of Germany, as a history geek with eccentricities, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 319th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! :)  auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kehl (1796)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kehl (1796) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, not sure if you've seen my comments on this article yet, but when you get a chance would you mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts? I would like to finish this review over the next week or so, as I will be going away for Christmas/New Year and probably won't have internet access between 25 December and 1 January. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kehl (1796)
The article Battle of Kehl (1796) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Kehl (1796) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry New Year
Whatever beliefs you have, merry New Year! We all mark that with new calendars, whether we like it or not! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Per de Custine GAN
Just a heads up: I've left a series of notes and comments to be addressed on the de Custine GAN page. Please attend to them at your earliest convenience. --ceradon (<font color="#036">talk  • <font color="#036">contribs ) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine
The article Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain fever. 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) 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Featured content
Hey! Hate to be a pain. You can probably tell this is nowhere near completion yet, but I wasn't sure if you prefer to be credited as Auntieruth55, auntieruth (like your signature), or, if you prefer, anything else.

You have done something amazing; I want to credit you properly. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, Auntieruth is fine. :)  ;)  auntieruth (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Schauenburg article
Please see my note on the Balthazar Alexis Henri Schauenburg talk page. I'm okay with merging my stub to your article. If the two of us are going to write the history of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars for Wikipedia, we need to stay out of each other's way! Lately work has made it tough to do as much writing as I'd like. Djmaschek (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele
Hi, I am on my way to the US visiting my mom for her 70th birthday. I will look into this once back from the US. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * no problem. If you're in my neck of the woods, you know how to reach me!  auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Battle of Kehl (1796)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Battle of Kehl (1796) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I haven't forgoten about this. I'll probably be able to get around it during the weekend. --ceradon (<font color="#036">talk  • <font color="#036">contribs ) 04:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Battle of Kehl (1796)
The article Second Battle of Kehl (1796) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Battle of Kehl (1796) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * By the way, I'd like to note that Battle of Malvern Hill has gone through a thorough copyedit (Dank copyedited the lede, but Mike Christie did the rest of the article) A last read-through is in order I think. Thank you, --ceradon (<font color="#036">talk  • <font color="#036">contribs ) 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke
May I ask you to have a look at my Denglish? Thanks :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort. I corrected one edit, it was München-Gladbach until the 1960ties, not Mönchengladbach of today. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I'd still leave at the current spelling, or make a parenthetical comment (as it was spelled before 1960). auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, that's why it reads in the section "Battle of Stalingrad", the first occurance "... to München-Gladbach, present-day Mönchengladbach" :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard III
Thank you very much for your help in getting Exhumation of Richard III of England to Featured Article status! I thought you might like to know that I have nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 26 March 2015. The request is at Today's featured article/requests/Exhumation of Richard III of England. Please feel free to comment if you have any views. Prioryman (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurt von Priesdorff
I just created this stub. Is he known to you? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * no he's not. I'll do a bit of hunting.  auntieruth (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First Massacre of Machecoul
I'm done with it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW: I think this is an excellent article. Djmaschek (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army of the Rhine (France), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingen. 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) 08:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Massacre of Machecoul
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Massacre of Machecoul you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Army of the Rhine (France)
 * added a link pointing to Tournay


 * François Ignace Schaal
 * added a link pointing to First Empire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Massacre of Machecoul
The article First Massacre of Machecoul you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First Massacre of Machecoul for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC
Hi Ruth, do you have time to revisit this one now that it's had a copyedit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll do this Monday or Tuesday.auntieruth (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the National Convention
auntieruth: Thanks for recently assessing two of my articles. Your List of Presidents of the National Convention article is wonderful but it's CL class for now because there are some citations missing. Please see the talk page. Djmaschek (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelm Stieber
Are you referring to ? In this book page 312 it says he received the Order of Saint Stanislaus. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thank you! auntieruth (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of List of Presidents of the National Convention
The article List of Presidents of the National Convention you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:List of Presidents of the National Convention for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Sotakeit (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!


We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unification of Germany
Regarding your revert, please check out Wikipedia:Overcategorization. "Holy Roman Empire" is not a defining characteristic of the unification of Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Height of Zugspitze
I am not sure it's the right way to proceed. I noticed that the height of the Zugspitze is listed as 296,206 m (971,804 ft), missing the actual height by a factor of 100, see Zugspitze.

Regards, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.200.200 (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thomas, which article are you looking at? auntieruth (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad, I was referring to Geography_of_Germany, the number in the sidebar.

46.237.200.200 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, 46. That was a vandal messing with the article.  Boson had fixed it already.  auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Germany
Slow down your horses on the "Germany" article, Auntieruth55. By reverting to your last edit, you've reintroduced Checkwiki errors that I've already fixed once today (and I don't really enjoy fixing a second time today). As a general rule, check somebody's edit before you revert it; you may be surprised to find something valuable there. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize it would revert your edits, I thought itwas only reverting Italiano's. sorry.  auntieruth (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Which War?
You may remember my recent question at WT:MILHIST. All can now be revealed, it referred to the Moulin de Vertain, Templeuve. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Military career of George Washington
This article needs some help - I really don't have the time to fix it all up, am hoping someone like yourself who's in WikiProject Military history & into American military history/American Revolution history can help. Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Former countries

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Former countries for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (talk)  @ 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
Your opinion would be much appreciated here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Borodino#RfC:_Should_the_article_infobox_contain_the_result_.22French_Pyrrhic_Victory.22 ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you also made a comment about the Battle of Borodino article. It looks like the contestants have written enough copy on the talk page to fill two B-class articles. There is too much fascinating material in the 1792-1815 era for me to get caught up in endless debates. Djmaschek (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC
Hello,

I've just renominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC. You commented last time. Mind taking a look again. It's been through a copyedit and an A-Class review over at the Military History WikiProject. Thank you, --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  contribs ) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BOLD and/or IAR
Since you inquired, what I did was this. Didn't do me any good, but I did it, and now its on the record (for better or for worse I guess). Goes to show what trying to fix a problem gets you in this Wiki-day and Wiki-age... TomStar81 (Talk) 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * lol I still don't know what you did (even after reading that). But no problem.  Sorry to hear about troubles on the family front, though.  auntieruth (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Definite/Indefinite Article
Hi I just wanted to query all of these page moves you're doing to remove "The" from article titles. All of the examples I've checked I believe you've incorrectly removed "The" from the title because it forms part of the title of the work (see WP:NCTHE which I believe explains this). If "The" is part of the title of a work I don't think we can remove it from the article title. In addition I think you might be miss-applying disambiguation to titles. One example (which is what flagged up on my watchlist) is Bridge at No Gun Ri (book). You moved this from The Bridge at No Gun Ri and applied the disambiguation. I believe removing "The" is incorrect as that is part of the title of the article. I believe also the disambiguation is incorrect because Bridge at No Gun Ri does not exist and so the article should have sat there (see WP:NCBOOKS. Interested to hear your views :) --Errant (chat!) 08:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned and shortened the introduction
Hello Auntie Ruth,

It took me a while to find the suggestions. On August 22nd I made revisions. If this meets your approval, or otherwise, I'd appreciate additional suggestions. There are really no other links to point to because there has never been anything officially published about the AGFA-Commando. My information is based on unpublished personal biographies and diaries from my mother and of her fella-prisoners.

Regards,

Jack van Ommen Jack van Ommen (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AGFA Commando
Hi Auntie Ruth,

Thanks very much for the help. Looks better, makes more sense.

I made a few changes, some are possibly due to me not being clear. I deleted the ten or twelve names you found on Ancestry.com. I do have a list of the about 200 women that came from Ravensbrueck to Agfa/Dachau. This list is found on my twin brothers's website www.vanommenverzet.eu I did not know about the women who came from Natzweiler. There are several Dutch men alive who went from Natzweiler to Dachau. I'll ask one of them if they remember any other women than Minne de Swart. (she was not very popular as Lageraelteste and later replaced by a younger prisoner). I deleted some of the points that you added from the defense testimony in the Stirnweis and Djerin trial. Like Stirnweis paying for the Christmas party from his own pocket and Djerin buying food on the Death March, that is totally baloney. Djerin was a sadist.

Sincerely,

Jack van Ommen

Jack van Ommen (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Auntie Ruth, do you have any information at all about the group that came from Natzweiler (date of arrival, number of women, nationalities)? Kattiel (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kattiel, only what I found in the list of Dachau inmates. They generally arrived in the Fall 1944–December, when Natzweiler was evacuated.  auntieruth (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Kattiel (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Auntie Ruh, Kattiel again (author of the Dutch page Agfacommando, based largely on the research by Jacks brother Jan). Thanks a lot for all the work you did on Agfa-Commando. Could you please look at my remarks at the talk page? Kattiel (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-French War (1778–83)
Hello, Auntieruth55 – In response to a request for a copy-edit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just gone through Anglo-French War (1778–83) and made a few minor copy-edits. However, I feel the article needs a little more work, and I have a few questions, so I asked Sturmvogel 66 if he had time to answer them and he said he was busy but suggested you might be able to answer my questions. I wonder if you have time. I just have a few questions, but if you read through the article you might end up having the same questions, or at least might find some things that could be improved. I'll wait to hear from you to see whether you have time to read through the article and, if you do, whether you'd like me to post my questions here or just let you work on the article a bit. Corinne (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Corinne, yes, there are issues, the least of which are citations. Let me know your questions, and I'll see what I can do.  It's definitely under sourced, and quite skimpy on the broader context of the Revolution.  auntieruth (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Here are a few and I may add some later today:


 * 1) In the section Anglo-French War (1778–83), you'll see the following sentence:


 * In 1778 France recognized the United States of America as a sovereign nation, signed a military alliance, went to war against Britain, built coalitions with the Netherlands and Spain that kept Britain without a significant ally of its own, provided the Americans with grants, arms and loans, sent a combat army to serve under George Washington, and sent a navy that prevented the second British army from escaping from Yorktown in 1781.


 * I think the sentence is a little long and is trying to cram too much history into one sentence. What do you think? Can you think of a way to break it up?


 * 2) Here is the first paragraph of the section Anglo-French War (1778–83):


 * The approach of winter made a naval campaign on the coast of North America dangerous. The operations of naval forces in the New World were largely dictated by North American weather patterns. The months between June and October are the hurricane months in the West Indies, while the months from October to June include the stormy winter of the northeast coast.


 * I think maybe a discussion of the weather in North America is getting away from the subject of the article. Perhaps a relevant detail about winter weather connected to a hiatus in naval maneuvers might be appropriate, but do you think all the rest is needed?


 * 3) In the last paragraph of that section I added a "clarification needed" tag. It was not clear to which island Admiral Byron had sailed back.


 * 4) In the third paragraph in the section Anglo-French War (1778–83) is the following sentence:


 * The Continental Congress cited Gálvez in 1785 for his aid during the revolution, and George Washington took him to his right during the first parade of July 4.


 * I wonder whether "took him to his right" is clear enough for the average Wikipedia reader. I wasn't sure what that meant, exactly.


 * 5) In the first paragraph in Anglo-French War (1778–83), we read about accusations made against Admiral Rodney, then the next thing we read is he is on his way home "in ill-health". (a) Is it important to mention the accusations? (b) If so, is there any information on any consequences? (c) What did he really accomplish militarily?


 * 6) I notice some inconsistency throughout the article in the names of the French admirals, especially de Suffren. We need to select a name and stay with it.


 * Well, that's all for now. By the way, did you read the comment posted September 15 on the article's talk page Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–83)? Corinne (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you've been working on the article. Your edits look great. I just wanted to add that I think I saw both the American and the British English date style used in the article. I hadn't figured out which style of English was predominant, so I just left the dates as they were, but once the style has been decided, I'd be glad to go through and make them consistent. Corinne (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I noticed also. I'm not going to have a lot of time to work on it more.  I've lost my dupe links identifier link, so I cannot figure out which ones are dupes.  If you can do that, it would be great.  auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Does "dupes" mean "duplicates"? If so, what duplicates should I be looking for? Corinne (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * duplicate links. Sorry.  I think I got most of them.  auntieruth (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Karl Mack von Leiberich.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Karl Mack von Leiberich.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Marienberg (1454), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marienburg. 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) 11:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AGFA-Commando
Dear Auntie Ruth,

Did you read my talk of September 26? I just read the exchange between Kattiel and you, in September. I was no aware of this in my September exchanges with you. I am a bit confused as to what I can still contribute to answer both your questions. Jack van Ommen (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack, I left comments for you on the article's talk page. auntieruth (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:EugeneBeau.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:EugeneBeau.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:FerdinandKarlBeatrixEste.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:FerdinandKarlBeatrixEste.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ferdinand Karl Joseph Austria 1781 1850 lithocolor.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Ferdinand Karl Joseph Austria 1781 1850 lithocolor.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Général Henri Jacques Guillaume Clarke.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Général Henri Jacques Guillaume Clarke.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Heinrich von Bellegarde.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Heinrich von Bellegarde.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Natzweiler-Struthof
Auntieruth, could you please look at the information on the Agfa-Commando in Natzweiler-Struthof? I had deleted it but my edit was reverted by user NOTABENE. I understand from Jack that there was a confusion of two prisoners (mr and mrs de Winter). You therefore deleted the information form Agfa-Commando but probably forgot to delete it from the page Natzweiler-Struthof. Kattiel (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norman Winning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia. 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) 10:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonnenblume and Skorpion
Dear Auntie, I've added material to Skorpion and had another look at Sonnenblume but need a bit more information on its deficiences, If you can manage it please. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

AGFA Commando
Dear Auntie Ruth,

I have done some upgrading. For one thing I added non-English references in my Citations. I was not aware that this was an option. We discovered one article in a French newspaper of one of the ex-prisoners. There were no real revelations fro what we already new. But it was at least published. I have also made reference to the "Namen Statt Nummern" program in the Dachau Gedenkstaette.

Hope this earns me a passing grade.

Regards,

JackJack van Ommen (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have time for a review?
May I ask you to review the Gordon Gollob article up to the section "Wing Commander". It doesn't make sense yet to review beyond that point. I am still working on the later sections. Don't feel obliged or pressured to do so. If you don't have time, or not interested, please ignore my request. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was a distant cousin of Herbert von Karajan. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thought he must be. Don't have time to do more right now, but will get to it over the next couple of days.  auntieruth (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Karl Theodor, Kurfürst (1742-1799).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Karl Theodor, Kurfürst (1742-1799).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question
I was looking to see who among the coordinators has admin rights at the moment, and noticed that you do not currently have rollback privileges. My question then is whether you would like me to add you to that group. You are a trusted user, and I get a sense that rollback may be a useful tool for you insofar as it would help with reverting en mass when needed during your classwork. If you're interested in obtaining rollback, lemme know, and I'd be happy to add you to the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I'm not sure what it entails. I suspect it will be obvious once I see what the options are.  auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, you in the rollback group. Suggested reading is here. Take a look the history of any page and you should be able to discern what the tool does :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks much! auntieruth (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/February 17, 2016
Ruth, the FAC nominator of this article is long gone, but I see you reviewed the article. This will show up soon at TFA ... would you like to offer an opinion on how it looks? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank, the article is fairly good, although missing some citations that we would have insisted upon. I'll try to  fix those in the next week, but cannot guarantee that I can find the proper sources.  auntieruth (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Karl Brandi
Do you know this German historian? I just realized that he was a relative of Albrecht Brandi. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your addition! You may want to express yourself in the following RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Louis d'Elbée
Hello. I noticed you put that Louis d'Elbée was a Major General. I was wondering, did you mean Major General for Saxony or France? Also I wasn't able to find a source calling him either, do you remember where you found that? Thanks. --Steverci (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was Saxony, although I cannot find where it is in my notes. However, I wouldn't have referred to him as major general unless one of my sources had done so.  but I'm okay with it if you want to pull it out.  auntieruth (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Germany
Hi Auntie Ruth, as you are an expert in European history, I'd be interested in your take on the Kingdom of Germany which has been the subject of discussion over several years. The main issue is whether it existed or not; certainly German Wikipedia's article, de:Regnum Teutonicum suggests it was just a term used to describe the mainly German-speaking states of the HRE north of the Alps and was never separate state within the HRE (I translated it while back for an English Wiki article, Regnum_Teutonicorum, but it's since been turned into redirect). In fact German sources hardly ever use the term "Kingdom of Germany". There have been various attempts to merge, split or rename the article, but none has achieved consensus. Are there any authoritative sources that speak to the issue? Cheers, --Bermicourt (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * will do....auntieruth (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
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) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/September 19, 2016
Hi Ruth, here's another one of yours at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank! I've tweaked it a bit.  I've been swamped with work at new job, so have been MIA here.  auntieruth (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope the new job is going well. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Hear hear! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * New job, and long term family crisis (3 years) finally came to a head this summer. :)  I could use that beer!  Cheers, Ruth
 * Glad to hear that. I'm reserving a beer for you here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Soooo subtle, Dank! :) But yes, I raised my hand to volunteer. auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's even better news. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bennet C. Riley
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bennet C. Riley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bennet C. Riley
The article Bennet C. Riley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bennet C. Riley for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR: Joachim Helbig
Hi, since you participated in the review of the article Joachim Helbig, I'm letting you know about the community reassessment that I initiated.

The discussion is at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Rivoli
Hello,

I have just had an exchange of emails with Sturmvogel66 drawing his attention to the fact that the page on the Battle of Rivoli uses an outdated and not very useful source (R.G. Burton's book on Napoleon's 1796-7 and 1800 campaigns in Italy -- it dates from 1911, though the republication date makes it look as if it is from 2010). In fact, the source seems to have been rather injudiciously used for various other pages. Sturmvogel66 suggested I draw your attention to the matter. Perhaps it is not a big thing, but I feel that the article on the battle of Rivoli as it stands is of rather a low standard, and it contains some simple factual inaccuracies. I am not keen to contribute myself, as I have already published on the subject, and I am wary of a format where whatever I write could be changed by almost anyone. However, I thought I would at least draw your attention to the page. I realise that there are thousands of them that could do with work, but this is a subject I know a little about, and it would be nice to see a better article in place.

Best wishes, and good luck with the work,

Martin BB.

Cambridge, UK.

Dr Martin Boycott-Brown (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with your excellent book and invite you to upgrade the article! I'll be happy to help you with the wiki-stuff.  I've tried finding a way to contact you outside of wikipedia, but have not been successful!  auntieruth (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Albany (1846)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Albany (1846) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Albany (1846)
The article USS Albany (1846) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Albany (1846) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Kunersdorf
Thank you very much for your contribution to the article Battle of Kunersdorf; it was a pleasure to read your edits. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you p|Eriba-Marduk...auntieruth (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories should be of defining characteristics
Hello. You should have a read of WP:Defining and WP:Categorization before creating categories like. At first glance this seems a clear example of WP:Overcategorization - as a general rule, if it's not a characteristic that would be mentioned in the first paragraph or two of the article about that person, then it's probably not a defining characteristic. This kind of thing belongs in list articles.Le Deluge (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Junker (Prussia) into Johann Dietrich von Hülsen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Happy New Year, Auntieruth55!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Auntieruth55, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Your GA nomination of USS Albany (1846)
The article USS Albany (1846) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Albany (1846) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/USS Albany (1846) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Review please
Hi and frohes neues Jahr. May I ask you to have a look at my review request? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Let me know what happens!   auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you please check again and give me an honest opinion if the criticism by coffman merits value? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think coffman is off base. We discussed this extensively in the milhist discussion, and we need one of the MH big wigs eventually to weigh in on the consensus we reached. I thought you did a good job of walking the fine line between two sources.
 * regarding hagiography, there are two reasons it's a problem. First, it's Nazi stuff. We need to get over that on all counts.  It's not a question of Nazi sympathy, it is what WAS, not what we wish it might have been.  Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, it simply causes us to stop remembering.  We adore the Napoleonic hagiography, and Napoleon was certainly a megalomaniac seeking world domination.  Or at least European domination.  No one seems to have a problem with Napoleon's awards.
 * Some of the editorial suggestions are very good! Please don't start a paragraph with 11, though.  Eleven.  That's fine.  I'd be happy to help with making some of the other editorial concerns, however, and I do think they are legit. A chart with the translations might be helpful also.  Eichenlaub, for example.  Then you only have to do it once.
 * HANG IN THERE! auntieruth (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please don't hesitate to chip in, and yes any further support would be much appreciated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of USS Albany (1846) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 13:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Andrassos/GA1
Auntieruth55, I noticed that you attempted to set this review on hold by editing the WP:GAN page directly. The bot overwrote the page shortly thereafter. You should never need to edit that page directly.

You'll want to check WP:GANI for complete instructions on how to put a nomination on hold, or ask for a second opinion, or to pass or fail the nomination when you're finally wrapping up your review. In the case of putting a nomination that's under review on hold, you need to go to the article talk page and edit the GA nominee template, changing the value of the "status" field from "onreview" to "onhold". The bot will then take care of changing the GAN page, and it should also post a note to the nominator's page that the review is now on hold and awaiting their input. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of USS Albany (1846) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 10:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Battle of Leuthen page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=763205650 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F763205650%7CBattle of Leuthen%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hochkirch
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Hochkirch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kay
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kunersdorf
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kunersdorf you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hans Joachim von Zieten
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hans Joachim von Zieten you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Leuthen copyright concern
I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757-12-05_-_Battle_of_Leuthen, a copyright web page that does not appear to be released under a compatible license. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd Question
Do you still have any affiliation with using Wikipedia as an educational tool? Given that you still have the link to Wiki Ed/Carnegie Mellon University/Conspiracies, Spies and Assassins of the French Revolution (Fall Mini 2015) on your user page, I wanted to ask because I had a follow up question that depends on the answer to this question which would be of use to MILHIST in a broad sense. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tom. I used it last for that course.  Right now I've been teaching in global history, and don't have the opportunity to use it myself, but I've talked to a couple of other faculty who do want to, and I'm encouraging them to do it.  auntieruth (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then! My follow up question is this: could the students using Wikipedia for a semester provide some feedback on what they would have liked to have know going onto Wikipedia as contributors (perhaps even first time contributors)? I'm looking to see if there are any obvious holes for our academy section, but to see where we are the weakest I would need feedback form people who have never been on Wikipedia in any capacity as contributors so they can suggest areas where the academy might need help. It doesn't specifically have to be with milhist, the newest of the new are going to need help on a unilateral basis and knowing where they need it the most could help us create new academy pages for those who need the greatest amount of assistance. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been talking to an adjunct about this problem--how do new users get into the groove, and where are our weak links. I can ask him.  I'll also see if some of my colleagues in the adjunct world can give us some guidance.  auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Battle of Kay page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=765693362 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F765693362%7CBattle of Kay%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hochkirch
The article Battle of Hochkirch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Hochkirch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kay
The article Battle of Kay you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Kay for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kunersdorf
The article Battle of Kunersdorf you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Kunersdorf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hans Joachim von Zieten
The article Hans Joachim von Zieten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hans Joachim von Zieten for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hans Karl von Winterfeldt
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hans Karl von Winterfeldt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karl Wilhelm von Dieskau
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Karl Wilhelm von Dieskau you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joachim Bernhard von Prittwitz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joachim Bernhard von Prittwitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johann Dietrich von Hülsen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Johann Dietrich von Hülsen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hans Karl von Winterfeldt
The article Hans Karl von Winterfeldt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hans Karl von Winterfeldt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about Paul von Werner translation
Hey,

I saw you wrote on the assessment request page that the reason for it sounding a bid odd (which it did) was for being translated from a weird original. Are you talking about the German wiki article for Paul von Werner? Because I just read that, German being my native tongue, and found nothing really odd in it. A partially old-fashioned and educated wording but that´s all. Just interest. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that article, and a couple of other things that I found. I guess the archaic wording got me a bit sidetracked. Also, I've been reading a lot of German recently, so have had some difficulty actually writing in English.  auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Leuthen
The article Battle of Leuthen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Leuthen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

GAN for Spanish conquest of Honduras
Hi Auntieruth55, I was wondering wondering where we are with the GA review? I appreciate you have already put a lot of time into in, but it would be a shame to let it stagnate - I was actually away for a little while, but see no recent activity since I last replied to your comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Simon, thanks for the nudge. I'll get to it this weekend.  I'm very behind in my grading, so that has taken some precedence.  auntieruth (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no rush - just wanted to make sure it hadn't been forgotten. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Leuthen
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Leuthen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Seven Years' War into Battle of Hochkirch. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

change
If you'd like me to change the ref formats, and teach you to do it in a way to avoid all these errors in the future, I'll be happy to do so. You already have google books urls in your books, so it will take less than a minute apiece to generate these (for example): If that book doesn't have a citation pointing to it, people who have Ucucha's script will see (big red letters): Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAnderson2007 Ucucha's script also gives errors for citations that don't point to a book
 * later Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * what will the citation look like? auntieruth (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave two examples immediately above (one is inside nowiki tags). Do you mean, what will the display (what the reader can see) look like? Look at Bengal famine of 1943, for example, but that one has much more than just sfn and cite book... the sfn displays like this: "...crisis had subsided.[1]" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw what the reference looked like. I wasnt' sure what the footnote/citation looked like.  I guess I could try it once. If you say it really helps..... auntieruth (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You could get Ucucha's script and look at the error on this page, because the book (above) does not have a citation pointing to it.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * :) I did and I saw. what would I have to do to set it up? to use the format? auntieruth (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 45 minutes or an hour from now I'll give you a step-by-step. When I write it down, it may look like a lot of steps, but seriously, making each reference takes less than a minute because you already have google books urls (or... google links to google book urls... I'll explain). So converting your whole Bibliography should take... 20 minutes of easy clicking, perhaps. And the tool (in the bottom userbox on my userpage) also makes harv notes, but all you have to do is replace "harv" with "sfn". I'll be back soon... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Open two browser sessions ("tabs" or "windows"). Since you already have google books links... one of the browser sessions can be the Battle of Kunersdorf article.
 * 2) The other browser session is this tool. It's "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books", the same one in the userbox on my user page.
 * 3) So I'm gonna do the third book there, "Asprey, Robert, Frederick the Great: A Magnificent Enigma". I'm just gonna click that link you have there... OK, this one takes me to Google Books actually. That's the right place to be.
 * 4) Select/copy the url from the google books page. This one, for example, is https://books.google.com.tw/books/about/Frederick_the_Great.html?id=VhtoAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
 * 5) Paste it into the textbox on the tool page.
 * 6) Press "Load"
 * 7) You're more than halfway home, but there are two options you need to select.
 * 8) First, under the textbox that displays the title is another textbox that displays the author. However, the default display would be the full name "Robert B. Asprey" and that is not what you want... Beside the Author box is a smal blue link that says " or last name:". Click the word "or"
 * 9) OK, go a little more than halfway down the page, there's a button "Make Citation". Don't click it yet. To the right of that you see stuff that looks like this:
 * [doc]  [doc]  plain wikicode  Vertical form  Extra parameters  ref=harv
 * Check the little box ref=harv
 * 1) Now press "Make citation". You get output that looks like this:
 * 2) take the long form... the cite book.. and copy/paste it into your Bibliography.
 * 3) take the short form... the harv.. and change "harv" to "sfn". [Then you'll add the individual page number for each particular cite]. Then copy/paste it into the place (or places) where you want to cite the book. For example, looks like Asprey is cited 3 times. The first one is at "...reconquered parts of Silesia that had fallen back to Austria". It's from page  43. add that to the cite after p=, like this
 * 4) That one is done! The next Asprey cite is at "...fought a Russian army of 43,000", but it is cited to more than one page. No problem, change p= to pp= (just add one "p") and make this: Done!
 * 5) And so on.
 * 6) Ask if you have questions  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't keep the tags. Delete those too... Instead of you only want    Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have to go for several hours. On the first page you come to for that ool, there's also a small link father down labeled "Try also: Wikipedia citation tool for DOI ". That one is for journals. I have never used it; you can play with it. Talk to you later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * was just trying to say it's not working....auntieruth (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Names must match exactly. I made a mistake above... instead of {sfn|Fred Anderson|2007|p=302}} you want {sfn|Anderson|2007|p=302}} Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm too tired now, and we've both stepped on each other's edits at least once, so I'm going to stop now.  Try to grade some papers and come back to it tomorrow.  Nothing appears easy the first time.  auntieruth (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Names must match exactly. I made a mistake above... instead of {sfn|Fred Anderson|2007|p=302}} you want {sfn|Anderson|2007|p=302}} Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm too tired now, and we've both stepped on each other's edits at least once, so I'm going to stop now.  Try to grade some papers and come back to it tomorrow.  Nothing appears easy the first time.  auntieruth (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah! How did you know I'm a teacher? There's a couple details I need to explain, forex, you can't put "page = here" with a link... will fix later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! I was going to try to grade papers! I figured you might be a teacher too, because of your very clear instructions.  I'll have to try to find some way to get page numbers then.  Some of those books don't have them.  auntieruth (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I did several for you; maybe more tomorrow. You know, very often you say "No page numbers but starts here" and then give a link. Well, Amazon.com has the same books, and usually with page numbers. I often go back and forth between google books and amazon.com to find page numbers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did several more, still not 100% done. You can always ask me if you have questions or encounter any tricky ones. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * doesn't it matter that Clark has no page number? I have the kindle and there are no page numbers.  auntieruth (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the material cited by Clark elsewhere, so removed it. I think it's done.  auntieruth (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There were two or three times that the original version had "no page numbers, but see here" with a link. I just skipped getting the correct page number so I could get done. However, if you have google books but no page number, the way to get them (usually, not always) is to skim/scan the page for a unique-looking string of four words or so that is on that page, find the same book on Amazon and then search for that string... I was either gonna do that later, or ask you to do it. There was one... maybe it was Clark... that the Amazon book didn't have searchable text. but most books usually do.......Oh! It looks like you've got'em. Good work! :-)... ALSO: You can use harvtxtto change this "Anderson says 7,000. (Anderson 2007, p. 301) Szabo says 9,000.(Szabo 2013, pp. 179–82)" into this " Anderson (2007, p. 301) places the total at 7,000; Szabo (2013, pp. 179–82) mentions 9,000." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I ordered the Showalter book, since I'll be using it so much. auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, you actually spend money on books for Wikipedia? My hat's off to you. I edit quite a bit, and I wouldn't give up cash for it. :-) .... Meanwhile, I completely revised the references of Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz, but then you added another in the previous style. Do you want me to revert all my edits, or... is the sfn style just not your style, or...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to teach a course on the Diplomatic Revolution and the Seven Years' War so I'll use it. Plus, the book is in my field.  so....  Anyway, Seydlitz.  I'm not sure if the tl/sfn is my style or not.  The other is just so orderly for me; it's how I typed the dissertation (without the wiki text) and it's second nature.  Anyway....since GA usually requires some adjustment, and I'm not done with the article... I do appreciate the help though.  auntieruth (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK good luck. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Book Drive
Greetings, Herr Auntieruth55! I've been overhauling WikiProject Germany, and I have begun collecting books and other resources for use by editors here. If it's not too much bother, would you mind adding some of your reference material? Cheers, and Gott mit Uns! – Vami _IV✠  05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Vami, well, it's a bit of bother because I probably have 2000 or more reference books. auntieruth (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy crap; that must be a curse and a blessing. Thanks for your additions thus far though. – Vami _IV✠  21:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there must be a way to better organize this....auntieruth (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and all those books are relics of my PhD / dissertation and teaching. I'm always happy to look something up or to confirm something is actually cited properly.  auntieruth (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Battles of the Spanish-American War
This article should be complete by now, but I think adding an infobox would be hard without copying the infobox from Spanish-American War. Please update assessment.--Randomness74 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Randomness, yes, just use the same info box. It's ok.  auntieruth (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed all mistakes I found.--Randomness74 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--  This is with respect to   DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hartwig Karl von Wartenberg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frederick William I and Mühlberg. 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) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz
Hello! Your submission of Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caspar Otto von Glasenapp, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brabant and Frederick William I. 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) 10:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC
I'm not sure if the ping thing is working at the moment as a few pings don't seem to have gone through, so I'm just following up on Ian's query at Featured article candidates/Kragujevac massacre/archive1 about whether you still want another read-through. Apologies if you got the ping and just haven't had time yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't seen it.  I'm good with it. changed comment to support.  auntieruth (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi, as an aside, you might want to avoid pinging Creuzbourg; the editor had stated that they wanted nothing to do with further discussion relating to WW2 personnel. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't want to drop him from the ping list until he says he's not interested. I'm sure you understand the delicacy of that....auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. As an additional suggestion, you could notify the editors who participated in the FA review: Featured article candidates/Werner Mölders/archive1.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Germania challenge
Hi Auntie Ruth, sorry for the delay in replying. I'm slightly confused by the "potential" Germania sub-challenge at WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge. I've been adding stuff to the main challenge page for Europe, although to be fair I'm a bit behind, but I'm not sure whether that counts as part of the Germania one. If we have a Germania one, do we transfer all the existing Germany flagged articles to that? Or do we start from scratch. Have you had any responses from other editors? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've heard nothing. I'm adding stuff to the main challenge, but the other is still in red.  So not sure if we should start one or not.  We could just do it I suppose.  You and I will have enough material to hit 1000, certainly.  ;)  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Be Bold. :) [here]  auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Be Strong... there's a song in there somewhere! Anyway I'm with you. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just renamed it to ...(Germania).... so we can spread the word. auntieruth (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Battle of Emmendingen
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_emmendingen.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. The content needs to be removed/paraphrased to comply with our copyright policy and copyright law. I was unable to revert to a previous revision without doing a lot of damage so I am giving you the opportunity to fix this yourself. Here is a link to the copyvio report. Please leave a message here if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what happened here, but is it okay now? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review
Hey auntie! I'm off visiting family right now, so I can't get on this immediately -- but if no one's gotten to it by the 5th, please ping me. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Louis des Balbes de Berton de Crillon, duc de Mahon
Hi, just to let you know, I left some comments on Talk:Louis des Balbes de Berton de Crillon, duc de Mahon/GA1‎ some time ago. Have you had a chance to review them? Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Rossbach
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Rossbach you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Rossbach
The article Battle of Rossbach you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Rossbach for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
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) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on new article
Hello! I've just written an article on the Third Silesian War; this is my first article about a battle or war, so I thought I'd solicit some input from someone with more expertise in the area. I went to WikiProject Military History's Germany taskforce and saw your name listed with an interest in eighteenth-century Germany, so I'm inviting you to take a look, if you will! One place where I'd especially like some support is getting a European copyeditor to go through and European-ize the conventions; an article about a German war should probably follow the conventions of Continental English, but I'm an American and can't easily recognize all the places where I should be deviating form my native idiom. I understand if you're too busy; either way, thanks!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will be happy tp do that! i just got back from vacation and need a couple of days!  if i dont get to it in 48 hours, ping me to remind me!  cheers auntieruth (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Quehanna Wild Area article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 8, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's "wild area over three times bigger than Manhattan, with a legacy of radioactive and toxic waste and its own elk herd." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhine Campaign of 1796
The article Rhine Campaign of 1796 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rhine Campaign of 1796 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Emmendingen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Emmendingen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Emmendingen
The article Battle of Emmendingen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Emmendingen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Emmendingen at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Borodino
Only good stuff this time I swear! I remembered you from when we had to settle things with this article. I wanted to work this article up to FA standard and I was wondering if you would assist me? Tirronan (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will, although there was someone else who had more information. But I'll certainly assist when I can.  auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rhine Campaign of 1796
— Maile (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Emmendingen
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Emmendingen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Emmendingen
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Emmendingen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * i reviewed them but i font habe a proper QPC template. auntieruth (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Emmendingen
Alex ShihTalk 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Winterthur scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Battle of Winterthur article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 27, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 27, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ACR nearly complete
I believe that your concerns about WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass have been addressed. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and see if there's anything else left to do as I'd like to put it to bed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of European Merit
In the context: thank you for today's Battle of Winterthur! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area
I saw the lead image and thought it would make a good TFA for January 1, a fresh and wild start in a New Year. What do you think, and you, Ruhrfisch? Is it in good shape? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I think it would be a great start to the new year article, although it's been subjected to some vandalism. I'd prefer that Ruhrfisch read it through to make sure....I read it through yesterday, and looked over the history.  auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it has a lot of dead links, and it would be worth doing a bit of research to make sure there are no major changes or updates to include (as one example, the reactor road was barricaded in 2010, but the latest map no longer shows the restricted area). So no major objections, but it will need some work before January 1. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I just saw that was listed as "not appeared" in error, because it's in the archive as 8 August 2017. I should have checked sooner, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you! :)  auntieruth (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army of Sambre and Meuse
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Army of Sambre and Meuse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army of Sambre and Meuse
The article Army of Sambre and Meuse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Army of Sambre and Meuse for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-radius: 20px; border-color:#FFFFFF; background: Silver; border-width:8px; text-align:center; padding:10px; height:210px;" class="plainlinks"> Dear   I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and, a very Happy New Year. Thanks for all your help and contributions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition to German Wikipedia
After understanding the COI policies better I feel more comfortable asking this favor. I'm petitioning to publish Bottega Veneta from English into German. I was wondering if you have time to help me out. I have a paid COI regarding Bottega Veneta, but my main concern here is ensuring that the information available in English is up to date in German as well. I have a translated version of the article on SandboxDE. Would you mind reviewing it for accuracy as well as its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks!--Chefmikesf (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army of Sambre and Meuse
The article Army of Sambre and Meuse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Army of Sambre and Meuse for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ewald Christian von Kleist
Hi, this edit you made on Ewald Christian von Kleist appears to be incomplete. There's a sentence that looks like a victim of a bad copy-paste (His regiment, theSchenckendorff Grenadiers, entered into summer campaigns; in Shortly afterwards in the Battle of Kunersdorf...) and you left a sentence fragment at the end (and died at Frankfurt (Oder) on the 24 August 1759). Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 18:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD at Hans-Ulrich Rudel
Hi, I left a message here: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel. Per WP:BRD cycle, please consider self-reverting so that we can discuss. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the edits do not address the concerns. Also, this is not how WP:BRD works. You've boldly added content that had previously been removed following in-depth discussions; I reverted the addition; now it's time to discuss, instead of restoring your preferred version. In addition, preemptively requesting page protection was inappropriate, as it shows a lack of good faith.


 * Now that I've explained the BRD process, I would urge you to self-revert, as refusing to do can be perceived as disruptive. I'd like to avoid further edit warring on the page. Or I can revert. Please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I've reverted. Please see talk page for my comments.    auntieruth (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete revert
Hi, the revert you did was incomplete; note that the edit "reverting per coffman's request" actually added 100 chars to the article. You appear to have reverted your latest edit, not the large addition.

To revert the large addition, please see this diff, which would be the 22:01, 3 March 2018‎ version. Then just click on [restore this version] on the upper left. Since you appear to be using Twinkle, this should show up for you.

Once that's out of the way, I'll respond on the Talk page discussion re: content. Please let me know if you need any more help. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you still need help with this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and completed the revert on your behalf here, per the WP:BRD cycle: diff. Please do not restore the contested material, as it may cross into tendentious editing. Please also see: WP:ONUS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge
In your review of Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge you said "more later" but never came back. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
 * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Statements on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Hi there, you mentioned User:Mastcell and linked their userpage. AFAICS, they have not written on that page. If it's User:MastCell you were trying to refer to, you should perhaps give them another ping. --Prüm (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you so much!! I've rectified this (I hope).  Cheers!  auntieruth (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold nom
Hello,

Thank you for your prompt review.

I have no aims of taking the article further, to A Class or Featured Article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolf Michaelis, Schiffer Publishing
I would not use Schiffer Publishing for matters of military history. And especially not, who is described in his de.wiki article as a "writer on the topic of the Waffen-SS, especially in right-wing extremist publishers and magazines. His writings are classified by serious media as apologetic to right-wing extremist".

I'm curious how you came across this book and why you thought this would be a suitable author. I'd be happy to share my findings with you on the matters of the historiography of the Second World War, if you'd like. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, it is not impossible to use a book with severe bias and carefully sort the chaff from the grain, so to speak.  You're welcome to email me as well.  I'm more likely to answer more quickly.  auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This op-ed that I wrote for the Bugle summarises my findings on the subject:


 * WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay


 * Separately, I was surprised at your comment that "it is not impossible to use a book with severe bias and carefully sort the chaff from the grain, so to speak." So you are suggesting that amateur editors take right-wing extremist texts and try to separate the grain from the chaff?
 * This also invites original research, as the editors may not know what is the "chaff" and what is the "grain". If the text says, the Brigade killed 4000 partisans in battle, is this "fact" or is it "interpretation"? Why not use reliable sources, i.e. Blood's Hitler's Bandit Hunters, to begin with? I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would appreciate a response to my question here: Are you suggesting that amateur editors take right-wing extremist texts and try to separate the grain from the chaff? If this is not what was intended, what did you mean exactly? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy right now w end of term grading. I'm not suggesting anyone take right wing extremists texts.  auntieruth (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are not suggesting that people take right-wing extremist texts, why did you recommend Michaelis? Were you perhaps not aware that he was a right-wing extremist author?
 * On the other hand, you did seem to defend your recommendation by stating that it is not impossible to use a book with severe bias and carefully sort the chaff from the grain. Please help me understand your reasoning here as your various responses seem contradictory. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War
Hi Auntieruth. I thought that I would move this off the assessment page.

Firstly, thanks for the time spent and advice given on this article. It is appreciated.

Secondly, do you really think that it is within reach of GAN? (Given a decent lead.) I stumbled across it and thought that it needed some TLC, I wasn't sure that it would even make B class.

Thirdly, I am a bit hesitant to put any more GANs in. I have 3 in Warfare and 1 in History and 4 more ready to go once I get some feedback from assessors as to whether I am submitting articles at about the right level. (Obviously I don't want to spam the GA page with rubbish.)

Which leads me to thirdly (b), could you advise me on the protocol of how many articles it is reasonable to have on GAN at any one time. I have noticed editors with up to 20 waiting, but am unsure if this is quite acceptable or is rather frowned upon.

For info: I have had 2 articles assessed as GA (both were a bit atypical); I have assessed about 20 GAs, of which 2 are still open.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given a decent lead, it's definitely within range of GA. Given an expanded context of the Finnish Civil War, it's within range of A class.

If you're going to add articles, it's good to review articles at GA. I'm not sure how many youhave up there. I try not to put up more than one or two at a time, but others are not as fastidious. I just finished reviewing 6. Cheers, ruth auntieruth (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. (See above in bold.) Leaves me with a dilemma; I have about a dozen on my waiting list at least as good as this. Ho hum, it's a good dilemma. Also reassures me that if anything I am under-estimating my article quality. Hmm.
 * I think that I will ration myself to posting one new GAN for each 2 that I assess. I can live with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I'm on a GA review binge, and trying to help clear the backlog.  It's a never ending process!  Cheers, Ruth  auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I really, really wasn't trying to hint. But I am grateful for your picking them up. I am sure that you are going to keep me busy. Any feedback, including stuff that may not normally go into a GA assessment, gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Constantine VIII. Thanks. I had my loins all girded to deal with a string of comments, queries and suggestions and you just wave it through . I had Zoë Porphyrogenita assessed yesterday - a bit of QPQ - and the assessor said "This was an excellent article and, as a result, the easiest GA review I've ever done!" Is it possible that I am under-estimating my articles? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom replies
Hi, just as an FYI, you can’t reply directly in line to other editors, you need to do so in your own section: either on the talk page, on the workshop, or by presenting evidence of your own in your own section. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * would be better to tell you where exactly a reply would fit, I just know it needs to be segmented off TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,  Tony.  I've fixed it, I think.  Let me know of other problems I create.  auntieruth (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You are now up to 31 edits to your evidence section on this case in the past 24 hours (roughly). There is no rule against this as such, but it makes it difficult for others to participate. Are you just about done editing your evidence, or do you think you have significant work left to do? If you do, would you consider please doing drafting in your userspace - cut and paste your evidence section to your sandbox, work on it there and then re-cut-and-paste it back to the evidence page? GoldenRing (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm mostly done.  I'm just tracking down a few more links, and I'll hold thm to a single edit (maybe two).  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"German war effort" case
Dear Auntieruth55, On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that you have been added as involved party in German war effort  case. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require assistance. Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you  I'm not exactly sure what that means?  auntieruth (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI...
...you've been here for 9 1/2 years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks!  I'm just plodding along doing my "job".  auntieruth (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

23rd New Jersey Volunteer Infantry
Hi,, I was wondering if this statue is related to the Battle of Salem Church. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi  I'm not sure.  It looks like the statue is in New Jersey, yes?  You'll have to see if the NJ volunteers fought at Salem Church.  auntieruth (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Years after the war was over, the regiment erected a monument—the only one ever erected for a nine-month New Jersey unit—on the Salem Church battlefield, where it stands today'. In that engagement, it was led by Col. Edward Burd Grubb, Jr., who took over command when Colonel Ryerson left to lead the 10th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry in March 1863.  Lotje (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Auntie Ruth 55, what the heck as the bot done to the content of your user talk page? Weirde, if you ask me. Lotje (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yes  it was weird, but I ignored it....just deleted it.  auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

GAN assessing
Hi AuntieRuth. You seem to like assessing my articles. It is much appreciated. Hopefully, the Gothic Wars slip up aside, they don't create too much drama for you; I try to get them there or there abouts before nominating. I have noticed that you assess outside of MilHist on occasion. If you fancy doing so again, I have a pair of articles moldering in Royalty, nobility and heraldry; Anastasius I Dicorus and Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century). (You may recognise the latter from her walk on roles in a couple of the GANs you have recently assessed for me.) Obviously you assess just whatever you want, but I thought that these might tickle your fancy. (As we sometimes say in the UK.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English invasion of Scotland (1385), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newcastle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/English_invasion_of_Scotland_%281385%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/English_invasion_of_Scotland_%281385%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars
Hi, can you please continue with your review on this page? Thank you.--Seiya (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Auntieruth55. I appreciate it a lot. The nomination just stood there for half a year until you took to review it.--Seiya (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, ; let me know if I can doanything else~! auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christoph II von Dohna
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christoph II von Dohna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick William von Kleist
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frederick William von Kleist you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hans Sigismund von Lestwitz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hans Sigismund von Lestwitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ehrensköld-class destroyer
While I understand your reason for failing the GA nomination (and I'm not involved in the nomination), do you have any useful feedback on the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I'd have passed it if he (or someone with knowledge of the sources) had gone through it and performed a sensible edit. I did some of it, but he didn't check it to make sure I didn't change the facts. Ideally, people who are not involved in the creation/editing of articles should not submit them for GA! If you want to polish it up, ping me back and I'll review it again. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)
Hello, could you please update your comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union). Yours are the only unaddressed left. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * im out of town and will try to address this by Friday. auntieruth (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) For engaging in harassment of other users, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
 * 2) Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * 3) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
 * 4) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
 * 5) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
 * I'm sorry all this happened. I just wanted to tell you how much I have always enjoyed working with you. I know it's impossible to ignore the shenanigans completely, but I hope you'll be able to store all this stuff away in some distant recess of your mind. You are indispensible to Milhist, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with your judgment, fairness, or dedication. I better stop now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Dank's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Carl von In der Maur/GA1
Auntieruth55, just a friendly ping to remind you of this GA review, which you opened on June 27 but haven't yet started. If you don't think you'll be able to get to it, please let me know and I'll be happy to put it back into the pool of unreviewed nominations with no loss of seniority. Otherwise, I hope to see your review there in the near future. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi BlueMoonset, I delayed on it because I didn't get an answer to my questions on other pages, regarding the use of the man's last name. I'd have used Maur, and my questions elsewhere didn't get an answer.  I've passed the article, but still think that the last name issues should be addressed.  Basically, we're calling him "of In the Wall".... which sounds odd.  Everything else was fine though!  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Proclamation of the German Empire
Hi Auntieruth55,

The large amount of text you copied to Talk:Proclamation of the German Empire created some problems there, which I've mostly resolved. If you wish to copy large sections of text to a location for discussion, please consider next time using a Subpage instead and just link to it from the Talk page. Otherwise, you could perhaps move the extended content to a draft space page. Another option might be to use the collapse templates collapse top and collapse bottom. Also, any text you add to a Talk page is subject to the Talk guideline, which includes signing your posts. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for fixing it. I didn't want to simply delete until there was some consensus.  thanks.  14:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that the History has all previous versions and all the text, and the text is always retrievable. So it's not necessary to copy it to the talk page in most cases. Probably the thing to do here would've been to just go ahead and delete it, then open a new Talk section saying, " ", along with any reasons for the delete or comments you wanted to make about it.
 * This would generate the following:"Just deleted from sections 'Terminology', 'View of the southern German states', 'Founding of the National State', 'Consequences and evaluation', and 'States of the German Empire'. The removed content can be viewed in the."
 * Then anyone interested would have all the information at their fingertips, and a talk section to respond to, if interested. And if there wasn't support for the removal, it could be simply reverted, or restored at a later date.  So, no need to copy any text to the Talk page, really, unless you expect lively discussion about particular wording and want to have it handy for reference among the participants.  HTH, Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Westerplatte/GA1
Can we finish this? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping. Waiting for your reply there. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Hochkirch scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Battle of Hochkirch article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 14, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 14, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Your GA nomination of Rhine Campaign of 1795
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhine Campaign of 1795 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhine Campaign of 1795
The article Rhine Campaign of 1795 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rhine Campaign of 1795 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhine Campaign of 1795
The article Rhine Campaign of 1795 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhine Campaign of 1795 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Waterloo Bicentennial
Now that the Waterloo Bicentennial has passed, would you be fine with archiving this incubator as the incubator is not an indefinite host for groups? Thanks, 20:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. long overdue. not sure how to fo it...auntieruth (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for the Battle of Hochkirch, "about the Seven Years' War battle at which the Prussian army was resoundingly defeated by the Austrians. It was a surprise attack; Frederick the Great ignored all signs that the attack was coming, and he lost big chunks of his army, several generals, and much of his supplies. See the article for details! ;) This is one of a series: Battle of Kunersdorf (another Prussian defeat), and two of Frederick's resounding victories, Battle of Leuthen and Battle of Rossbach (still in puberty)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia
Hello, Auntieruth55. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot! 123.150.182.179 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i could ... could you sign in so i know who is asking? auntieruth (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Theresienstadt family camp/GA1
Auntieruth55, when you get the chance, please return to your review here and continue if possible. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
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) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhine Campaign of 1795, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Mainz ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rhine_Campaign_of_1795 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rhine_Campaign_of_1795?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

BoM
Many thanks for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maudach, Auntieruth55! As a Maudach local I was excited to read about this part of our history as I've never heard of this battle before. Funnily, there seems to be close to none sources in German of this particular combat. Maybe you can recommend more references where I could dig deeper into this? Again, many many thanks. Excellent work. --Ph0nq (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Second. You've been a wonderful friend, an outstanding coordinator, and an awesome editor. While I am sad to see you move on (such as it were), I trust the rest of Wikipedia will be glad to have back :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Maudach
Hi there!

Due to a potential translation request in de.wp for your article here, I started to take a look at the topic and I have difficulties to verify the term "battle of Maudach" or "battle at Maudach" independently. Could you point me to the sources for article, that actually use those terms?

Regards,

Kmhkmh
 * Digby Smith. Might also be called Action at Maudach.   50,000 men, 600 casualties plus,  it's definitely a thing.  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Army of Sambre and Meuse/archive1
Just an invitation to the blurb review. Enjoy your time off! - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah here's another one, WT:Featured article candidates/Rhine Campaign of 1796/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apropos of nothing: please ignore the ping at User:Gog_the_Mild/Blurbs. But you'll be getting a couple more pings for blurbs shortly. Glad to see (from stalking your edits) that you'll be back in the saddle in a few months! - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Rossbach blurb
Hi Ruth, how is RL treating you these days? Hopefully gently. Your regular erudite contributions are sorely missed. Not to mention that GAN has gone to pot since the days when you churned out assessments.

has sub-contracted to me the generation of a couple of blurbs, to be ready for potential TFAs. One was Battle of Rossbach. (What a fine article. Great maps.) On which I have a query. The article lead states that "The Battle of Rossbach ... France refused to send troops against Prussia again and Britain ... increased its financial support for Frederick. Following the battle, Frederick ... marched for 13 days to the outskirts of Breslau. There he met the Austrian army at the Battle of Leuthen". I just wanted to confirm that your sources are clear that both of the French and the British reactions were solely because of Rossbach, and not because of Rossbach and Leuthen combined; what with the Third Treaty of Versailles not being signed until March and all. Happy to go with what the article lead says, but just wanted to check.

PS I miss assessing your lovingly crafted articles, so if you do throw any more in, consider giving me first refusal will you?

Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. Rossbach was a  catastrophe.  It and Leuthen combined really crippled the Austrian effort, but Rossbach knocked the French back.  After it, they didn't send troops to help at Leuthen either. But the sources credit Rossbach; it was a demoralizing loss.  Leuthen, as a loss, went to the Austrians.  The French had invested the city, and once they lost the city, they were out completely.  And of course, I'll be back soon.   :)  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth. Thanks for that. I have fudged it a little in the blurb - see here. If you would like to tweak it, feel free; but be aware of the 1,025 character limit.
 * Happy new year. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I tweaked a little bit. It's still under the character limit I think.  I don't know how to count them.  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius  19:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
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) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
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) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky has been nominated for listification
Category:Recipients of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Storm of 1987, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death in Paradise.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
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) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
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) 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
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) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
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) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
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) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
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) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
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) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
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) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
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) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
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) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
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) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
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) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
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) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for USS Mindoro (CVE-120)
USS Mindoro (CVE-120) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Army of Sambre and Meuse
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Army of Sambre and Meuse, introduced (in 2018) as "about the French army engaged in the Campaigns of 1795-96. It was part of a major campaign in 1796 which resulted, initially, in French incursians well into the Holy Roman Empire. With supply lines stretched, and infighting among generals, this army and the Army of the Rhine and Moselle were forced back to France."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Cologne War
Have you kept up with your Cologne War article or reading about it at all? HenryRoan (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
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) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023
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) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the Swiss Air Force
History of the Swiss Air Force has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024
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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024
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) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

FAR for unification of Germany
User:Buidhe has nominated Unification of Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)