User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 10

Battle of Dunkirk
There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jassy-Kishinev
How many times must you be told to please *not* do any controversial article moves without any kind of proposal? How many of your proposals must fail before you realize that the name you so passionately seem to hate is the accepted name in modern English language historical circles, not to mention the official name of the operation? That Glanz in his new book focuses on the Targul frumos offensive so much as to call the actual J-K operation "second", is not ground enough to go against scientific consensus, as was demonstrated here (Glanz' invention "Operation August Storm" is only a secondary name) and as you have agreed yourself here (although the latter case is dubiuos, as no scientific consensus was verifiably presented there). --Illythr (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he attribute the operation name in his book to a Soviet directive calling it such? As you can see in the examples above, sometimes his names are his invention (well, once, actually). Also, isn't this the battle of Targu Frumos?
 * Anyhow, of all people, you should know that unilateral moves of that particular articles is a very bad idea. Please propose it first, once again. --Illythr (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, never heard of a "first" J-K Op... there's certainly only one in any Russian source I read. I noticed some references to fighting in that period, but Soviet units were ordered to the defensive on 5. May, AFAIK. Also, there's an inconsistency with the dates - the Uman-Botoshany operation, that is generally labelled the precursor for the J-K ended on 17 April. Seeing as how they both are in the same operational area, it's odd that Stavka would start another operation before the current one is completed. Even more so, as, according to Konev, the U-B op exhausted (due to the unsuccessful battle of Targu Frumos) and the troops were deemed unable to mount a new attack. Mmh. --Illythr (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't go against established scientific consensus, I have neither reason, nor intention of opposing your good work. Still, it would be nice to know whether that specific name is coined by Glantz or he cites an actual Stavka directive ordering an offensive named such. In any case, the apparent overlap with the Uman-Botoshany offensive should be cleared to avoid confusion. I made a few edits in your sandbox in the meantime, please verify if they're ok. --Illythr (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you can initiate another move request. However, I will invariably vote against it, because Glanz is currently the only author to use this name, whereas every other reliable source (pretty much everyone else, really; Google finds no hits at all for "second iasi-kishinev" or "second jassy-kishinev"; neither does google books, huh) uses "J-K Op" specifically for the August operation, making his POV a minority one (for now, this may change in the future). Is there another name he uses in his book? Also, is this the official Soviet name of the operation? A positive answer to this question will likely get you many votes at ReqMove. --Illythr (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that both names of those battles can be found in many outside sources, whereas this one equates a (relatively) well-known operation with one that is completely obscure (so far you have avoided an answer to the question, whether it was a self-name or Glanz' own invention). A viable option would be to use the alternative suggested by MILMOS: Use the same article name for both ops, with the date serving as a disambig. (April-July 1944) vs (August 1944). Still, this really should be decided by the MilHist project participants, so I suggest a ReqMove (perhaps with two choices) that is advertized at MilHist to solve the issue. --Illythr (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you decided to do the confrontational way again. Seeing as how you have a history of doing sneaky POV moves of that article, this can be interpreted as a breach of WP:POINT. Still, per AGF, I ask you to undo this controversial move yourself and do it the right way. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you're the one doing the controversial move, it's you who should be using the WP:RM. I will implement the other solution, with the dates, as the name "Second J-K Operation" is not used by any source at all (apparently, not even Glantz). This is a temporary solution, until an appropriate name for the "first" operation will be found, but it will do. --Illythr (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm doing it in accordance with the MILMOS as well: "...the month of the battle may be used as a disambiguation (as in Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942))." Please also review WP:CONSENSUS to see how these things should be handled. You might find this approach more productive than a sneaky move when nobody's looking. --Illythr (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai
Thank you, I was about to close that review and you beat me to it. That I can see, there aren't any others with strong consensus at the moment - in ACR or FAC for us. Cam (Chat) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Good luck on the FAC for Operation Cobra!

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Falaise Pocket
I'll make it a priority ;) EyeSerene talk 10:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. Even though we don't agree I still respect your opinion and it seems that one of us will have to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject. I am so glad to see that people are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject, keep up the good work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is A Good Philosphy. Good Luck on the Coordinator Elections, I Hope you Make it (cross your fingers on my bid for a Coordinator position :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perch and Normandy Strategy
How do's!

I believe i have finished editing Operation Perch do you feel there is any information missing from the sources you have?

Also did we get started on a normandy strategy article or is that still in the to do list?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * lol once this has a good ce done over it i think we can jump stright to FAC! :D--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Image to consider
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Târgu Frumos Hi I have added this image here as well in case you miss it --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)



Coordinator
It seems we have our seventh official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators
There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Next moves
So out of our objectives we currently have 5 out 35 (ish) articles up to FAC standard. Falaise pocket should be passed soon and with a bit of luck so shall Perch within the month (or early next month).

Following Friday and up until April (when my next uni assignment is due) i plan on finishing off the Goodwood article and then the Villers-Bocage one. For co-ordination efforts, what are you going to be working on?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, although i do hope that after we have worked on the articles we have talked about the group doesnt essentially cease to exist. I also fully support your ideas that you presented in your candidacy!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for aid in copyediting
I'm currently working to shepherd Operation Deny Flight through an FAC, found here, and Laser brain has suggested that the quality of the prose isn't good enough for the criteria. I respectfully disagree, and I have done my best to beautify the article's prose, but Laser brain and I felt that it might be best if an outside copyeditor could come in and touch up the wording to assuage his concerns (I would do more work myself, but it's often so hard to spot faults with your own writing). In any case, Laser brain suggested that you might be someone who could help out, so I'd like to ask if you'd take a look at the article, and help out if you can. I imagine you have other things on your plate, but I'd be very much obliged if you'd at least give it a quick look. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much! Cool3 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your work so far. I hope you don't mind that I've copyediting your copyediting a bit. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your re-election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe   N  01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:2nd btn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2nd btn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Babadag firing range.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Babadag firing range.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI, you awarded the wrong class of ACM -MBK004 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Support/Copyediting Midshipman
Thank you for your postive comments on the ACR. I've tried my best to copyedit this article but my eyes have glazed over my imperfect prose. Would you be able to help with the copy edit? I don't know what else I need to do to get support, all the other problems have been addressed. Maybe I'm formatting my responses incorrectly? Thanks for your help! Kirk (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Fregata Regele Ferdinand.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Fregata Regele Ferdinand.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu
The recent rant on the talk page I've put up for discussion here. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin?
I happened to have found WP:List of admin hopefulls the other day, but was rather suprised to find your name on it becuase i wonder the impression you were already an administrator. Since you are not there yet, I thought I'd swing by and offer to nominate you if you wanted to try your hand at RFA. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Until then, good luck :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DanGhica.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanGhica.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. 72.88.53.147 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:IAR 316.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IAR 316.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. Wknight94 talk  04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Constantin Croitoru.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Constantin Croitoru.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. Wknight94 talk  04:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome!
Hi, Eurocopter and thank you for your warm welcome! Can you or somebody else who is more objective than me, take a look at Talk:Klis Fortress. I rated the article as B-Class on the quality scale, but I wrote it so I might be a little subjective. Am I wrong, if yes please correct my assesment? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K.--Kebeta (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...be careful in reverting
Someone else has asked me not to put warning templates on your page as you're a "regular" and someone of good standing. Apologies for that - it's just that the Russia page gets hit with a lot of vandalism.

So I'll just say that this edit, reverting and thereby reintroducing the phrase Russia aka I suck land officially known as both Russia and the most terrible place in the world by reverting anti-vandalism work was probably not the best idea.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message! ;-) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RuAF
Hi Eurocopter. Thanks for the updates on the Tu-214s. Please, we regularly revert unannounced changes in inventories on that page which don't cite references. Thus please would you cite your source - much better example that way. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cöln vs. Köln
Hey, Eurocopter, hope your vacation went well. I thoroughly enjoyed my vacation and came back refreshed and relaxed. Anyway, back here at WP, I've been working on refining categories on cruisers and noticed that the spelling of SMS Köln (1909) and SMS Köln (1916) (and the latter's namesake class, Köln-class cruiser) are spelled differently than sources I had and from the spelling at the German Wikipedia, all of which are spelled with the Cöln spelling. I asked Parsecboy about this and he seemed to recall some discussion about this (but not where it took place) and noted that you had made the article moves back in January 2008. He also has sources that indicate the ships were spelled with the C spelling. Do you, (a), recall any discussion prior to the moves, or, (b), have sources that indicate the K spelling is the correct one? (I don't have access to WWII sources, but the spelling for the English WP article on the Reichsmarine/Kriegsmarine cruiser, at GERMAN CRUISER Köln, seems to match the German WP article's spelling in that case.) — Bellhalla (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, unfortunately (or fortunately :) ) my vacation went a bit prolongued by a few days, this being the reason why I haven't been around as announced earlier. Regarding this issue, I recall as well a discussion establishing the consensus for my moves, but couldn't find it (I've searched even through my email). However, if you have reliable sources that state something else, feel free to move the articles accordingly. All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ACR closure
Hi mate, welcome back. Just re. the SMS Hindenberg review, the new guidelines that ACRs stay open a minimum of 5 days (and a maximum of 28 days) might've been agreed while you were away, accordingly this one officially had another day or so to run. Probably not a huge deal in this case, admittedly, but so you're aware... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I wasn't aware of the new ACR regulations concerning minimum/maximum duration. However, I believe we can make an exception this time considering that it had 5 supports as well. Anyway, thanks for the notice! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of another closure, I was a bit surprised to see WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States) closed as a promotion. At the time of closure there were two 'oppose' votes where the editors' concerns hadn't been addressed. Could I suggest that you re-open this review? Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sincerely, I've attempted to close all these reviews two days ago, but decided to wait until yesterday especially for this one. It had four supports and one oppose (couldn't count two opposes, I'm not sure where did you find it). The nominator adressed the issues in decent time, but the reviewers did not come back to update their inputs in four days. This would be the reason I decided to close this review as well. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd echo Nick's comments. This ACR seems to have been closed a little early and mid discussion.  There are issues still outstanding in the article that the editor has yet to address, or is unwilling to, and it only seems fair that these issues are discussed to a conclusion.  Although I support the article's promotion, the opposing comments are perfectly valid and I agree with them.  I'm also concerned because the editor hasn't yet addressed my own recommendations, nor those of another supporter either.  There are 2 opposes - one editor wrote that he echoes the oppose posted before him. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you really believe that the article still has important issues to be resolved in order to be an A-class, please feel free to open another review according to these instructions. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't just close that ACR as passed if there are active oppose votes, Eurocopter. Whilst I wasn't officially an oppose (though I should have but I forgot, my fault) I supported the queries about sources. Neither should have been discounted, particularly since I was never asked about my query by Ed! on my talkpage or elsewhere (albeit I actually forgot about the review as I've been busy helping with a wedding) and to simply say that another review should be opened is rather pompous. It should't have been closed with active opposes - imagine if that was done at FAC, particularly when those opposes weren't spurious or inactionable. There's also the fact that Ed! didn't deal with the comments made by his supporters, either, which doesn't point towards an article being ready for A-Class. I'd like to officially request, as another MILHIST Coordinator, that you go back on your closure and open another A-Class Review. Skinny87 (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

←Eurocopter, you may want to bring this up at WT:MHCOORD, especially since the article is the third for an awarded ACM, the issue will come up if the review ends up being closed as not promoted. -MBK004 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, just re-opened the review. However, please try to update your inputs in a decent amount of time and be bold when posting them. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pais (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hill 262
No problem, looking forward to it (though it'll be after I've finished with Villers Bocage). EyeSerene talk 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Contest update
Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)