User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 6

Thanks and Happy New Year
Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.







Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be good to have your feedback/comments on the drive at the Tag & Assess workshop

Thanks again for your help, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iassy-Kishinev Operation
Hi Eurocopter. Before we get into the disagreements, let me say happy holidays and a happy new year - your talk page looks quite awesome right now with all the chevrons and the fireworks etc. 1. Air Armies - you'll see I raised that on the coordinators' talk page and you can see what happened there. 2. Iassy-Kishinev. I saw what I said as a statement of fact, given that your edit summary was 'the operation took place on Romanian territory, therefore the Romanian names should be posted; there is no reason to put the name of Romanian cities translated into Russian'. However I don't think we'll come to any agreement on it, so let me merely say what my argument is for renaming the page - all historical sources use this convention, and WP is not mirroring but creating new data which does not correct historical consensus. However, it's better than the 'Battle of Romania'! Happy new year anyway and I hope you had a good holiday. Are you back editing now - not waiting until the 6th? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just created a straw poll to determine whether it's worth to go for mediation on that thing. You can go and plop your "against" there now. I am thinking about notifying every participant, but I'm too lazy to do this by hand. Say, do people use some kind of a spam tool to thank everyone who voted for them here? If so, I'd like to use that one for this purpose... --Illythr (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, man. Say, how about I default everyone who opposed the move to "against" and invite to vote only those who voted for it?
 * And that was a remarkable show of bad faith, btw. Vote canvassing is certainly not my thing.
 * Oh, and you can't talk about "official English names", seeing as how there's no institution to make things official in English.
 * Here's a quick comparison for Jassy vs Iasi usage in literature during the last 15 years: "Jassy" = 769 hits, "Iaşi" = 318 hits. Note that most books that use "Jassy" are history-related and those that use "Iaşi" come predominantly from Romanian authors. Illythr (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know what an official name means? --Eurocopter (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "Bucharest" an official name? Why is this article a redirect then? --Illythr (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you understand. In that case, why do you keep reverting to "official in English"? --Illythr (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is done. I didn't warn the last two because they didn't really participate in the discussion. Your call. --Illythr (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add something you think may be of use to the discussion, don't generate content-free comments - make a point in the comments section. --Illythr (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Eurocopter, I appreciate. Few things have annoyed me more in the past few weeks here at WP than this incident (and there are all sorts of annoying things happening, believe me!) I don't really know how to handle this kind of attitude, but, if left unchecked, it can become a real problem. I don't mind disagreements, even strong ones--as long as they are expressed within the parameters laid out at WP, which I think are very reasonable. But this guy has crossed the line, in an extremely annoying fashion. I hope we can put this thing to rest, and all get back to doing something more productive -- it's hard to concentrate under such adverse conditions. At any rate, a belated Happy New Year! Cheers, Turgidson (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

STOP!
Tormenting a blocked user is a flagarant breach of good editing behaviour. You are within a whisker of being blocked yourself. Stop now. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! I just continued the discussion in a civil manner and I had the good faith to announce him regarding my intentions? Why would be this so tormenting? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow? 'Civility' (or polite language, rather) is not a blanket license to upset, from a position of strength, those who are placed in a vulnerable position. If you thought that strongly that the block should be extended, you should have said so on the blocking admin's, not blocked user's, talk page. That, coupled with the "I will assume good faith (a thing which you didn't)," etc. — that is inappropriate, especially under the circumstances. El_C 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took notice of that, sorry if I didn't act properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. El_C 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille
I finished editing the article and made the changes you proposed (referencing, reworking the Notable actions section, etc.). So I ask you to support the A-Class nomination. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on project article
There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

new article
Hi, I noticed you made the LAROM article and I was wondering would you make the ATROM article to, if you decide to do so please contact me I would like to help.

I could alsaw help on other military equipement(to some extent) I am a fan of these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracula2007 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question
I'd stick with one style; having both in place will likely just confuse readers. Kirill 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whichever one is more prevalent in the sources, to minimize the need for conversion. I suspect it'll be OS. Kirill 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You could put a footnote after the first date, if you think it really matters. Kirill 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The bulgarian Gligan is forum shopping for the inclusion of Romanian name of Vidin. See talk:VidinAnton Tudor (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
I knew I was forgetting something. :P · AndonicO  Hail!  19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bell 206LT.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bell 206LT.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bell 427.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bell 427.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bell 427(2).jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bell 427(2).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bell 427(3).jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bell 427(3).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Iranian Bell 214.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Iranian Bell 214.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

These images have been tagged as no license because the usage permission is missing. Please post at least the part of the Email where the author granted the usage of these images under the free license you chose. If usage is granted only for Wikipedia then these images have to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note:

Image copyright problem with Image:MLI-84.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MLI-84.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CA-95.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:CA-95.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Denniss (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does the source website state thos eimages are PD for everyone and to be used for everything? --Denniss (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide precise sources for images, and precise reasoning behind a copyright tag.
Regarding Image:MLI-84.jpg. Simply stating a high level website (that happens to have 6,000 images on) is not acceptable. Additionally you state that the image is "No rights reserved" without explaining the reasoning behind this. If it says this somewhere on the website - link to it. I've just spent 10 minutes trying to work out where exactly it says this and I can't. If editors can't verify the copyright status of images, they will be deleted. I would suggest that you review Image_use_policy. Megapixie (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael the Brave
Hi, I saw you edits on the Michael the Brave article, and I followed the discussion on the Military History project talk page. To be honest I think the article is far from completion. I also have a major objection to replacing all the Rezachevici references with Giurescu references. Not only does that amount to replacing recent sources with older ones but it also it deminishes credibility. As a comunist age historian Giurescu is certainly not the most controversial, but he is known to have complied with the political guide lines of the age. At least some Giurescu references should be reinforced by Rezachevici references, the latter bieng known for his balanced position on Michael. I also saw you removed the note on the boyars opposing Michael. In my oppinion that is important. It goes to internal Wallachian politics (note that a PhD Thesis is an academically acceptable reference even in scientific journals, therefore I see no point in systematically removing Manea references as well). Anyway, the final chapters of the "story" of Michael's reign need to be developped and the pragraph on legacy needs to be extended and to discuss sensible aspects such as early Hungarian and Romanian views, Ceausescu-age propaganda and so on. I have little time these days and I preferes contributing to ro.wiki. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I figured the easiest thing to do would be to hold the referendum at the same time we held the vote. To be fair, I posted the same message and both pages where the initial proposals were made, and it was a 'go for it' message that I got first. Sorry if that was unexpected. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ok, in the end it seemed a good idea and it was organised well. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The invitation to vote in PMH Coord elections lacks a wikilink
FYI. Thought you'd want to know before you got too far. Thanks for the reminder. BusterD (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I love ya. Good luck. Wow. No Kirill. He's even more my wikihero now. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I really wouldn't have noticed! All the best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation of East Prussia
Dear Eurocopter tigre,

You just removed my version of the topic above, ten minutes after I saved that page. It would be nice to read my version first before restoring it with an "better" version ( Yours).

There are several mistakes and wrong informations within this version.


 * The refugees did not cross the Curonian Lagoon but the Vistula Lagoon.
 * They did this because Red Army reached the Elbing area cutting off the way to the west ( It´s simply senseless to cross the Curonian Lagoon)
 * Refugees did NOT try to escape to the Neisse region, but mostly to northern Germany and Denmark ( Operation Hannibal)
 * Trakehnen wasn´t a Wehrmachts stud farm
 * Refugee trains did NOT leave East Prussia after 26 January 1945 ( that wasn´t possible any more), so the 40 – 50.000 people arriving at Berlin in the end of January every day were NOT coming from East Prussia.
 * Within Operation Hannibal the people were evacuated to Germany and DENMARK

... to be continued.

And I think that it´s important to show, why the civilians were not evacuated before the soviet offensive started on 12 January ( defeatism and undermining military moral).

Please feel free to make a comment to my version or show why my version is wrong, but removing it as a whole is not very polite, I´m sorry.(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC))


 * It´s ridiculous, does Beevor really say the refugees crossed the Curonian Lagoon? This is obviously !!! wrong, I´ll check this. If he really does ( and all the other stuff, Neisse region ?!? ) he seems to be not a serious source, I´m afraid. The evacuation to Denmark is also mentioned in the book "Unternehmen Rettung", footnote 16.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

And by the way, the picture showing "German POW marching towards Königsberg" was ( also obviously ) taken at Torun ( compare it to the picture shown at "Landmarks").(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC))


 * The picture was already there when I started to overhaul the article. I checked again over Curonian Lagoon and seems that Beevor is wrong here, confusing it with Vistula Lagoon, so your right in this matter. But I still didn't find out why would be Neisse wrong. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Neisse region is southeast of Berlin, East Prussia is at the Baltic Sea, most refugees were evacuated by SHIP, how could they go to the Neisse region 500 km away from the baltic coast. And even those who managed to escape by train or marching: the Soviets arrieved at the Oder ( river Neisse leads into the Oder south of Berlin ) building bridgeheads on 31 January (Vistula-Oder Offensive), why should anybody try to go just into the middle of the scene of war? Off course people from Silesia or the Newmarch ( east of the Oder ) fled to the Neisse region( simply to the west ), but the topic is evacuation of EAST PRUSSIA, not the eastern territories. I think Beevor uses the term East Prussia for the whole area east of rivers Oder and Neisse. All the numbers he gives are much too high for East Prussia alone. This also explains the 50.000 people arriving by train - from Silesia, Pomerania, Neumarch - Yes, but not from East Prussia ( they were evacuated by ship, not by trains )


 * As an example for the evacuation to Denmark I found this page on a refugee cemetary in Oksböl/DK  . I try to find more about it.


 * Trakehnen was a stud farm, property of of the prussian state since 1732, and the horses were surely used by the Wehrmacht, but this doesn´t make Trakehnen a Wehrmacht´s stud farm ( was Volkswagen or Mercedes - Benz a Wehrmacht´s factory?)(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Does Overy give a source for the 193,000 people living in East Prussia in spring ´45? It might be inside the northern (Russian) part, but for whole East Prussia it´s too few. In October 1946 more than 100,000 "Autochthones" were living in the southern (Polish) part of East Prussia ( A. Kossert, "Ostpreussen" ) and that was the minority, allowed to stay. So 193,000 in spring 1945 isn´t realistic.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

That´s fine, does Beevor say anything about his sources? (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Off course, but Beevors book is not the bible, it should be possible to be a little more critical. (And btw Beevor uses the German expression "Frisches Haff" for the Vistula Lagoon, I couldn´t find anything about the Curonian Lagoon in his book (English Version), so maybe it wasn´t his mistake) (HerkusMonte (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

OK, i found this on antonybeevor.com:
 * GARF 9401/2/96 pp.255-261
 * "Konigsberg up to 30 May, clearing rear areas. Estimated population of East Prussia 2.2 million in 1940. Population down to 193,000 registered by 30 May. In the regions of East Prussia that will become part of ther Soviet Union, earlier there was 1.25 million. At the present time there are approximately 82,500 people of the German population. Insterburg, Tilsit, Gumbinnen, Stallupennen and Eidtkunen, the German population was moved to other areas and at the present time the German population is forbidden to enter. From 9-30 May operatives arrested 1,280 men of which German."

and I think the point is the expression "registered". It´s the number of Germans already registered by Soviet authorities in May 1945, which does not mean, that this is the complete number. We are talking about May 1945!, probably the Red Army had some different problems but registering Germans and Germans had no reason to be registered (by NKVD/Smersh). Michael Wieck estimates a number of 120 - 130,000 civilians only in Königsberg in 1945. Maybe it should be added, that the NKVD registered a population of 193,000.(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Re:Your Message
Got your message just now, but when I went to remove the vote I couldn't find it becuase someone else beet me to it. In any case, its been removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. Probably WP:AN/I. Dahn (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator election
It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject for the next six months. Congratulations!

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that I have to offer.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Kirill 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your re-election as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done Eurocopter. I wish you another six months of happy military mopping, more good times reading articles at WP:MHR and success with your own article writing. And hopefully another big period of growth. Blnguyen  (vote in the photo straw poll ) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck with this term, Eurocopter. Kyriakos (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! and Good Luck! -- S M S  Talk 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

 * I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing
Congrats and keep up the good work. Dahn (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey what's up? Take a look here. What happened to the Mil. Police bat in the previous structure? Dapiks (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer
Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1000 tanks in storage

 * Buna. Am inca o intrebare. La equipment ptr. ROLF, am vazut ca ai pus 1000 de tancuri TR-85 in storage. Esti sigur de asta? Eu pe sursa de la ziua am vazut ca scrie ca romania are doar 300 tr-85 in storage care urmeaza sa fie modernizate. Si daca iti mai aduci aminte, amandoi am vazut acum cateva luni ca Ro la moment nu are mai mult de 56 de tancuri TR085 M1 modernizate.
 * Si uite, pagina oficiala la romtehnica nu mentioneaza mai mult de 150 de TR-85 in storage din care 100 nici nu sunt functionale. Dapiks (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunt total de acord cu tine - poate doar pe alea 54 TR-85 functionale sa le mai modernizeze. Eu propun ca pe moment, in loc de 1000 de tancuri TR-85 in storage, sa mentionam in dreptul fiecarui tip de tanc si numarul de tancuri in storage potrivit documentului de la romtehnica. Inca ceva, multe tancuri stiu ca au fost donate la armata afgana si cea irakiana prin 2005. Dapiks (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces
Hi, I reviewed this article as part of GA Sweeps and left a list of improvements on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. I came back to delist it today and noticed that you have put this up for peer review within this time. Are you aware of the review? The changes I have suggested are not too extensive and I don't want to delist this unless I have to. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for an article
I am wandering if you would like to write an article about participation of Romanians in the armies of other nations. I have in mind Austrian and Russian Armies in WWI, Soviet Army in WWII and Afghanistan, Russian Army in the Russian-Japanese War. I don't have sources for this, all I have is just a few numbers (sourced, but the sources speak about completely diff stuff). Do you know how to search for more information regarding this? I wanted to ask Biruitorul about this, he seems to have access to some good library, but after the latest distress I have caused him, I wouldn't dare involve him for a while. I would also like to compile a list of Romanian high officers in other armies, which I believe should include at least the two-star generals. Perhaps, it would make sense to have the list as a section of this article. What do you think? I know such an article would be a long-term game, but I believe it would qualify as WP-notable.:Dc76\talk 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, even if i'm not documented at all in this issue. However, it may take some time until I'll find some proper sources, but i'll do my best. For the moment, could you provide me all the info you currently have? --Eurocopter (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, it will take some time to dig the sources. So today just the numbers: WWI, Russian Army - 300,000 solders, don't know KIA/MIA/injured. Russian-Japanese War - 30,000 solders, of which 14,000 KIA and MIA (it was very bloody). WWII, Soviet Army - cca. 300,000 participants, of which cca. 100,000 KIA and MIA. The number of injured don't remember. Soviet-Afghan war 12,800 participants, of which 301 KIA/MIA. Again, I will ask Biruitorul after Thursday, since now he is being crucified. Dc76\talk 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) well, don't forget to check how he's doing either. I also forgot to mention obvious people, like Mikhail Frunze. Dc76\talk 00:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BCAD
Hi Paul:

I hope you don't mind but I've had to move your range from Worklist A to Worklist B to sort out a mess created by another user. I saw you hadn't started assessing so no harm done! Thanks for supporting the drive, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! They weren't struck through and, amid three or four mess-ups, I didn't think to check your contribs. I'll credit them in full on the tally. Apologies again ... -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed very unfortunate and I'm genuinely sorry if this has upset you. I'm not quite sure what we can do about this now though other than to credit you with the articles you've done, give you another range, and apologise for any harm done. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Russian-Circassian War
Hey, I noticed yes as the page is on my watchlist. I haven't be able to read in detail yet, however the extreme difficulty I had in finding reliable sources is clearly taking its toll on the article :( its the weakest of my FAs, by far. SGGH speak! 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Hello Eurocopter. Just wanted to thank you for your time in reviewing the William Stacy article. And thank you for your support and comment. Thanks, ColWilliam (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)