User talk:Millelacs/Archive 3

6615 Ranger Force, Walt Nye
Could you please check your article on the 6615 Ranger Force. I tried to edit it, but since I'm a novice, I probably screwed it up. Particularly interested in the completely made up/untrue/not factual part about Walt Nye being the 4th Ranger Battalion commander during the battle for Cisterna. Lt. Colonel Murray was the commander. Later, when the 4th was attached to the 504th PIR during the defense of Anzio, Murray was hospitalized, and his XO, Major Nye was in charge for about 7 days. Lt Colonel Murray returned later to take the original Rangers (1st BN mostly) back to the US. The other Rangers who were recruited or assigned during Africa and Italy were assigned to 1st Special Service Force. Lt. Colonel Murray was actually the last Ranger Battalion commander of Darby's force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword100 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A-class
Hello there!! Of course I'm interested in that! Tell me what I have to do! Marcofran (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Nobody has replied.. What should I do? --Marcofran (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. Do you want me to try the Military history WikiProject, too? I'm sure you'll get replies there.  DCI  talk 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Anyway, it doesn't matter now; I won't be able to participate in any conversation about the article or make any corrections as I have no free time at the moment. Thank you for all your help. --Marcofran (talk) 12:47, 16 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] 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Lewis Nicola
Alright, cool. Sounds like a plan. I look forward to working with you. I do have school during the week, but I should be able to reply in a reasonable amount of time. —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not busy anymore, so if there are anymore comments, I can easily address them.

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] 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited John T. Chisholm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2nd Infantry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Metternich
That's fine :) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the first para of "Historical assessment" - it wasn't supposed to be slanted in any way, so obviously I'm anxious to fix any biases that might have crept in there. Feel free to raise further objections :) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:User
I too haven't heard from Bhavinkundaliya for a while now.I think (hope that I am wrong) he has left WP.You can attribute it to the fact that he was constantly bitten for trying to support a POV.I hope that he comes back and that our fears are proven wrong.P.S:BTW Belated Happy New Year :-)  Vivekananda De  --tAlK 05:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks!  DCI  talk 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)