User talk:Ranger Steve/Archive 3

That distinctive wing silhouette...
G'day Ranger Steve, I think the statement about the silhouette of the Spitfire being decisive in forming public perception during the BofB is inaccurate anyway; the public seldom had a chance to see and admire the wing's silhouette, particularly when the aircraft were in combat. I believe the real catalyst was more likely to have been Beaverbrook's "Sponser a Spitfire" campaign. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:49, 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) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review for John Baskeyfield
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 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you get any photos of the statue in Burslem? If not then I've spoken to the guy who runs thepotteries.org and all the pictures on this page http://www.thepotteries.org/photo_wk/065.htm were taken by him and we're free to re-use them (I have email to that effect from him). NtheP (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Licensing I think is OTRS pending but I'll upload the photos and take care of that side. NtheP (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just uploaded both photos. File:John Baskeyfield VC statue close.jpg & File:John Baskeyfield VC statue1.jpg  Under the CC licence these can be freely edited. NtheP (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsutomu Yamaguchi
Hello there. I noticed you removed the failed citation template from the Tsutomu Yamaguchi article. The linked news item contains the sentence:

It alludes nothing to him contemplating suicide for himself. Or am I missing something here? Regards.-Shahab (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems. I too felt that suicide was implied and was hoping that someone would provide the appropriate citation. The sentence at present "Yamaguchi did not believe his country should go to war, but he considered killing his family." seems a bit strange though, particularly the "but" in the middle. Regards-Shahab (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Efficiency Decoration?
Dear Ranger Steve, I see you altered the 'Efficiency Decoration' as part of Robert Henry Cain's medals and decorations. I do not and will not dispute the usage of clear references and evidence, but I still wonder which decoration the second ribbon might be on Cain's tunic at his VC investiture. A picture of it is used in his article. The only decoration he was officially granted that resembles this second ribbon is the Defence Medal. But that wasn't issued until the summer of 1945. Cain, however, spent 12 years in the TA and special reserve before the war, which would make him elligible to wear the ED. But, yes, there are in fact no official records of him being awarded this decoration. Anyway, it was just a thought... Keep up the good work! Greetings from a military history enthousiast! MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.216.20 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re John Baskeyfield
Hey Steve, forgot about that! I'm glad you've managed to get an alternative image. The one I obtained isn't good quality (traffic plus a slight blur - I'm convinced my daughter took it from a moving car, though she denies it!) If you couldn't have got anything else it might have done, but I'll get rid of it. All the best. EyeSerene talk 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2
I'll help you with the prose and sourcing, but I won't be able to until about 10 PM central time. You can leave me messages at my talk page or the FAC and I will see them then. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All I ask is you do not give up on me. If you seen my other work, I will pretty much fight tooth and nail to make sure I got everything you ask for. I am still waiting to see if the copyeditors guild has looked at the article, but I know it had a few grammar checks before and during this FAC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no time frame, but I will try and do what I can. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked for outside copyediting, but not sure how much that has been done. I really think since the article has changed so much during the FAC, can you look at it and see if prose is the only thing that is needed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The copy editing is being worked on as I speak and I am glad you like the WW2 additions to the article. Anything else you can think of? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mheart did the copyedit for the Japanese flag article and it was completed today. Is there anything else other than a copyedit that you need for this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WHS infoboxes
Hi again. You might be interested in Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site. Best, --John (talk) 16:19, 26 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) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit
Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Mk 8 Landing Craft
HMAV Ardennes was named after a British river crossing which helped end the Battle of the Bulge.

HMAV Abbeville was named after a minor part of Operation Dynamo.

HMAV Agheila was named after a operation in Libya which included a massive deception by Jasper Maskelyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medcroft (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 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) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)
Hello. You supported the 45th Infantry Division's A-class review last fall, but the ACR was closed with no consensus due to a sourcing issue. I have since addressed that issue and have opened a new one. Please do come back to give your input. Thank you! — Ed! (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Mk 8 Landing Craft
Hello. I can't be bothered to argue with you about this! I have had to much fiddling and flak from all sorts of people over a very minor article which I started and now wish I hadn't. So I am abandoning my contributions. Just to clarify one matter though - HMAV Agheila was named after the battle of El Agheila which did include an amphibious element. Thank you also for fiddling with the picture of L4128 - did it really need altering from the original? And yes I did serve on HMAV Abbeville (and also HMAV Audemer). HMAV Agheila was the only other Mk 8 LCT left in service at the time (1977) - civilian crew. Medcroft (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings.  My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively.  I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about.   I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval.  Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it.  My public e-mail address is Med.croft@virgin.net.Medcroft (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Something for you...

 * You're very welcome :) Strangely enough, what prompted the thought was your removal of unsuitable material from Falaise pocket to the talk page. I've just had a long (but very polite) email from the author, basically exhibiting some confusion but also apologetic for their complete unfamiliarity with WP. I don't think they realised the material had just been moved (or even that talk pages exist), so it was great to be able to explain what had happened and, thanks to you, to be able point them to the appropriate place where I told them we can discuss it with a view to perhaps putting some of it in the article. It would have been frankly embarrassing and shown us in a poor light if their edit (which obviously took them some time and effort) had just been reverted - so, sincerely, thank you. Like I said, you walk the walk. EyeSerene talk 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for that "Oh, shit!" moment you just gave me :) I've emailed them about sticking to one account (the email I received was from Falaisegap), so hopefully there's nothing to worry about. EyeSerene talk 23:26, 3 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) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist coordinatorship?
Apologies if you've already been approached about this, but have you considered standing for coordinatorship in the upcoming elections? The project will be losing quite a few coords this time due to real life commitments, and interest from the membership in standing has been low so far; we're concerned that one reason for this might be that potential candidates are put off because they believe the role is much bigger than it actually is. Hence this personal message - I believe you'd be ideal for the job and can assure you that it's not a drain on time, requires no previous experience in the 'office' areas of Milhist, and doesn't detract from normal editing. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note, and if you're interested you can sign up here by 15 March. All the best, EyeSerene talk 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, we've been having a chat on the coords talk page about whether that Academy FAQ page is actually counter-productive because it makes it sound like being a coord is a big deal. Personally I think that sentence about prioritising coordination over other wiki-activities should go; I can understand why the FAQ says that (we obviously want people who want to help out), but I've never felt conflicted over priorities. From my perspective as a middling-active coordinator, I watchlist the task force pages I'm a coord of (I can recall dealing with about two queries in 18 months, though I'm sure that's busier on the more active taskforces like WWII), I watchlist the awards page so I can vote in award nominations (though half the time these are over before I see them), I close the odd A-Class review (if MBK hasn't closed it first!), and I chip in with discussions that catch my interest on the coords and main Milhist talk pages. It all probably amounts to no more than a few hours a month, maximum. Obviously more time-intensive tasks do crop up from time to time - writing an editorial for the newsletter, facilitating a project discussion, informal assistance on a disputed article etc - but these are purely voluntary. Many new coords say that they feel like they aren't contributing much, but I think that's because they expect the role to be bigger than it actually is. Of course if you want to be busy there are plenty of tasks that always need doing (article reviews, contributing to the Academy, assessing and tagging...), but you don't need to be a coordinator to do those! The whole thing is very informal - if a specific job needs doing someone will generally drop a note on the coords page; otherwise, the role is really just about being a contact point for the project, being unobtrusive, and chipping in where you notice something that needs doing and you're willing and able to have a go. I hope this helps address your question - I have every confidence you'd fit in perfectly with the team and wish you all the best for the election if you do decide stand :) All the best,  EyeSerene talk 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great news - good luck! EyeSerene talk 08:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
I was actually going to drop you a note after the promotion and thank you for your reviewing efforts, but you beat me to it. Though I didn't agree with all your comments, your thorough review helped improve the article considerably. Your suggestions about the excavation and salvage helped clarify a lot of the process. If if you feel anything else can be improved, please drop a note at the article talkpage.

sincerely, Peter Isotalo 07:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Found something for you...
Found this on ParaData whilst writing Nigel Poett: http://www.paradata.org.uk/content/theirs-glory-1946. It would also seem that there is a detailed analysis of the making of the film in After the Battle issue 58. I'll try and find out where we could get that from. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where one finds magazines; I doubt libraries keep old versions. If I get this job I'm applying for, I'll see if I can buy a backissue and mail it down to you. In other news, I just got Harclderode's history of the 6th Airborne Division, so once I've got Poett done I'll be writing the division's article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's £4.25 on the ATB website as a back issue. It would have to be the issue with Rudolf Hess gurning all over the cover! Still, 'tis my birthday in a few days. If I get any money, I think I'll purchase a copy - I'd like to read about how they made it anyway. Skinny87 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Victory Campaign
Nice 1! Ill wipe that note considering its available in a few places still :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations :) EyeSerene talk 07:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats RS! It's nice to have you onboard. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yamato FAC
Hey, Ranger Steve, I think I've done some addressing of your issue of coverage for the Yamato FAC. I've added some stuff from the main class page. Let me know if that's sufficient. If it isn't, I'll keep looking. Cam (Chat) 02:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election
for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Good Luck on your time as Coordinator! Lord Oliver  I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Way to go, and you're welcome. Openskye (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you during this term. – Joe   N  14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

British task force
Hi Steve,

If you are keen on being a co-ord on the British task force, I don't mind if you bump me off and move yourself across. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, just to let you know, I've taken myself off the British task force, so if you want you can move yourself into the 3rd co-ord position. I will put my name down on one of the other ones that hasn't been allocated. Have a good one. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, take my place
You can have WWII, I just took it because I know so little about the other areas. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers Dank, that's very kind of you. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

V-B
Hi Steve

OK, i think there is only a few little things left to add or tweak in the Villers-Bocage article; i know you took a look over it before for CE but we have had a bit of a revamp since then. Could you do a sweep over it so we can start moving towards FA status?

Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks allot Steve!!! I will take a look at your review and comments later on once i return from this hell-hole of a job!! :D--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive3

ACR closures
As promised at WT:MHCOORD, here is my critique of your first close of an ACR (I'll go through in the order I do things when closing reviews): Overall, for your first time and with a set of instructions that definitely is not easy to fully understand (which is why I do intend to write an article for the Academy on exactly how I close ACRs and archive PRs this summer) you did a good job. If you have any questions or need some help, do not hesitate to ask. -MBK004 06:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First-off, if you've ever seen my edit contributions or your watchlist when I close one of these, you will notice that the edits all get submitted within two minutes. The reasoning is that I make full use of tabbed browsing and make all of the necessary edits to each page and submit the entire thing at one time.
 * Your actual application of the archive templates as well as the closing note on the actual review is excellent (I could not ask for anything more)
 * See something wrong with this? ... along with changing A-Class=current to A-Class=pass, you also need to update class=GA to class=A (at this point if the article still has a B-Class checklist tied to our template, remove it because it does not affect assessments past B-Class (GA-A-FA))
 * You probably were not aware but MILHIST has review cross-listing agreements with WP:AVIATION and WP:SHIPS so if the article is tagged by either of these projects, do not forget to also update that project's assessment to A-Class as well.
 * Your issue with the and the oldid parameter seems to have already been answered at the coordinator's talk page. What I do is have the article itself open in one tab and click "history" and then go to the most recent version and click on the date. Then the URL of that version of the article will have oldid=xxxxxxxxxx
 * Your move of the review from WP:MHR to the applicable archive is perfect as was the removal of the review from WPMILHIST Announcements
 * The final point in the instructions is where you made the most errors:
 * On the list of A-Class articles in the showcase, they are listed by alphabetical order and you also need to update the counter at the top of the page (which is manually done, in this edit I updated the count as well as put the articles in to alphabetical order and italicized the ship names
 * That is the other thing, per the MOS, the names of ships are rendered in italics, so the actual listing should have been Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship
 * On the newsletter, the promoted articles are again listed in alphabetical order and the ship names italicized
 * On the ACM tracking page, when an editor has a third article promoted, instead of making the edit, I only preview it and then open all three of the eligible articles and then go ahead and make the nomination for that editor's ACM, taking into account if the editor has been awarded an ACM before and how many, along with the dates of the promotion of the three eligible articles. Once the nomination is live, I remove the editor's name on the eligibility page (without even having placed the third icon in the actual edit history of the page). Here is how I handled this: Nomination Removal at the eligibility page
 * No set in stone list, but to my knowledge we only have the cross-list agreement with aviation and ships. -MBK004 01:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ACM mess
I just realized that there was a massive problem with the nomination page for our ACMs, and I tracked it down to this. In the future, please allow me to handle this aspect of the A-class promotion process since it is going to take me the better part of an hour to clean this disaster up. -MBK004 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, that was a bit harsh on my part, but in my defense, I was a bit heated at that point and the prospect of cleaning up that mess was not all that appealing coupled with the real-life assignments I'm juggling I let emotions get the best of me. Apologies are indeed warranted and I would take back the summaries if I could, but I doubt they meet the requirements to be cleansed via revdelete by WP:OVERSIGHT. And go right ahead in making future nominations, just make sure before pressing submit. -MBK004 08:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is a new nomination I have just posted there as well that you can !vote on. -MBK004 08:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you check a source for me?
I know you're probably sick of dealing with the Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank vessels, but could you do me a huge favour? I'm under the impression that you have access to a copy of Habesch's The Army's Navy...if so, would you be willing to verify the ship list table's information on Ardennes and Antwerp (cited to p. 162) for me? This information was added and/or cited by what I think may be single-purpose accounts. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 06:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
And would you know how to get it to be the width of the other box? — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback/autoreviewer
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also gave you autoreviewer. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed, thats very kind of you. I promise to only use these powers for good (once I've worked out how to actually use them...)! Ranger Steve (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Autoreviewer just means that any articles you create won't show up on WP:NPP, meaning less work for them. Rollback is easy as long as you don't revert someone's non-vandalism edits. :) — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Osan talk page message

 * Steve, Check out the talk page on the Battle of Osan. I have a letter from former members of Task Force Smith you will find of interest. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
That was unexpected, but very much appreciated. Thanks very much! EyeSerene talk 07:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm not sure I fully understood your question, if I got it wrong, please ask again.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could use your 2 cents
Back over at the noticeboard. I'm trying to establish definitive consensus on this issue so anyone citing a sign doesn't get challenged later. If you could go back to the noticeboard, to my section, and firmly state your opinion, I think that would help with consensus. I'm dealing with a possible challenge to a cited sign in a FAC right now. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

68-pdr article
I've started the review of this, not much to do. Talk:68-pounder 95 cwt/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 68-pounder 95 cwt
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New Support for Signs
You might want to note Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Consensus is that signs from known and credible publishers are considered reliable enough to be used in Featured Articles. If you ever have a FAC that cites a sign, you may want to keep this link handy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly is no such consensus in that discussion. I would be cautious about making false claims of consensus; better to err on the side of caution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take a little sampling of opinion, shall we?
 * User:Nev1 - As far as signs are concerned, they should be treated like any other source; if the producer is considered reliable (for example information boards at English Heritage sites, or local historic sites maintained by local groups) they should be considered reliable in the same way a book produced by the same people would.
 * User:Malleus Fatuorum - Depending on whose noticeboard it it, I don't see any reason on why it shouldn't be considered reliable.
 * User:Redtigerxyz - If a sign-board is put by an known official party, then IMO it must be considered a RS. It is like placing information on a website by the official party.
 * Then there's me, and you know what I think.
 * That's four in favor, one with a neutral comment, one saying (I paraphrase) "if nobody disagrees, then I'm fine with it," and none against...which is a consensus, mate. I even DECLARED a consensus there and nobody objected or disagreed. And you're not a part of that discussion, so what are you doing here? Little bit of Wikihounding? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you gentlemen, thank you. I have commented at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:48, 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) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat
I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming of converted guns
Before we get into an edit war, I would like you to consider the following : Concerned guns were often described, if appropriate typesetting was available, in terms of the new dimension over the old dimension, which I can't reproduce here. Hence 80 over 68 -pr. R.M.L. 5 tons. If the appropriate typesetting was not available, that was expressed simply as 80-pr of 5 tons. Have a look at the diagram which accompanies RML 64 pounder 71 cwt gun denoting a conversion from 8 inch to 64-pounder standard. There was no such thing as 68-pr of 5 tons and I've never seen mention of such a thing. Hence your assertion is inaccurate, and misstates what the naming standards of the day actually were. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you disagree, but I've got quite a few books that use the term RML 68-pounder. I've added a ref for a book I have to hand at the mo and removed the 5 ton bit (as that isn't included), although you must admit that there would be a case for including it from the online source.  If the appropirate typesetting wasn't available, then sure they might use the 80pdr only, but if it was available they also included 68. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re discussion on Milhist talk page
Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately the attitude on display is par for the course, but hopefully your timely reminder will have some positive effect. EyeSerene talk 09:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * C'est la vie. I enjoyed that, btw :D EyeSerene talk 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks! WP:IDHT isn't recommended as an editing philosophy - I've switched off to be honest. EyeSerene talk 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Henges
I've cleaned up the links that were wrong so they are now sensible. But rather than delete henge monument, I now think it and the other pages should all be merged into henge, i.e. henge enclosure, henge monument and hengiform monument should all be merged into henge. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

lol
I put that there as a joke m8 :¬)

If you read the DOD definition of Tactical Diversion it says "see Diversion"

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I smirked when I read it : )
 * Just trying to keep the conversation in as much order as is possible. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any chance you, as the most severely neutral neutral, can archive all that "Noob" "??????" "F****G" stuff if he isnt going to strike it out or delete it himself ?
 * It really isn't nice to look at lol
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I'm afraid I have a personal policy of not editing/censoring other people's comments (excluding formatting, vanadalism or tidy ups). I had been planning on requesting (again) that he strikes them though. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - I have jsut seen the new postings about it so am leaving it up to the group unless someone asks me directly for comment :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to comment as well of course, but I understand if you've had enough!. He has just struck the comments btw (well, he tried). Ranger Steve (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, were I not involved I would have blocked him for that. I'm sorry you had to endure that utterly unprovoked abuse, Chaosdruid - it says much about your tolerance that you didn't take it further. EyeSerene talk 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition of terms
Hi

I realised that the definitions of terms such as operational objective and others may need refs and sources. I have added some to the Tactical victory article.

Before continuing can you have a quick look and make sure I have not messed it up.

I am asking you to do this in readiness for letting others know I am trying to clean up these articles and posting on the Milhist pages.

I realsie that this is not a good time to start hacking at the articles after the recent incident but it does strike me that there are definite needs such as the lack of sources - this one in particular as it only has one ref - a book on naval operations.

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

henges
Hi

I just spoke to the head of research at English Heritage

He advises me that they are in the process of reddefining thier terms and have come to the same conclusions we did

They are dispensing witht the word monument due to the reasons I stated - confusion over the "raising a thing as a monument" and "a site which we are treating as a monument" (which includes village sites etc.)

He told me that their definitions are used by archaeologists as well.

Their new definitions will be:
 * Mini-henge <20m
 * Henge => 20m
 * Henge-enclosure >300m

He says the team that is dealing with the new definitions should have a new set out in the next month or two. THey will be dropping "monument" from all their classifications.

He told me that the most recent books are
 * Bradley - The prehistory of Britain and Ireland 2007
 * Josh Pollard (editor) - Prehistoric Britain: and in particular the chapter by Vicky Pollard

Seems like we got it right then lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * LMAO :¬)
 * Yup - dunno if you agree to referring the the smaller henges as mini-henges just yet but I suppose we should technically wait for them to agree with us so we at least have a quotable source lol
 * I take it you are an archaeologist of some description ?
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope - my name comes frorm my youth when I had a chaotic evil cleric - I used the name when I made a couple of tracks at a studio we used to own amd my partner (business) was a druid - he was married in a druidic ceremony after the "lawful" one. Best part was when we had to get a three ton blue welsh stone into an Oak copse at the bottom of his land although I don't really like the human sacrifice part lol.
 * I used to plant lots of stands of "three trees" all around Norfolk where I live now - normally Oak Ash and Elm and I have Stonehenge on my desktops if that qualifies :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My preference would be "hengelet"... EyeSerene talk 22:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehe, nice idea but probably best stick to military history EyeSerene : ) Ranger Steve (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Spinal Tap springs to mind for some reason. EyeSerene talk 07:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now u have the proof
Please go to the article allied warcrimes during ww2 and check out the dicussion regarding POWs, and then read how enigma summarized this on milhist. Then u will finally see where the problem is. Please take the time. Blablaaa (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a problem related to the issue at hand. You may well have a point, but that isn't an issue that affects what we're talking about on the Milhist page. That discussion is some 60 comments long and even then I'd need to investigate the table more thoroughly to understand it. Mediating "he said, she said" arguments isn't what I volunteer here for I'm afraid (and even if I felt the need, I simply don't have the time). I assure you that nobody's comments about other articles are going to sway my own opinions on the article we're discussing though. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * u told me that all involved editors try to find consense and try to improve wiki. I said this is incorrect. If u follow the links u will see that iam correct. If somebody wants to mediate, what is actually very appreciated, he should know who wants to find consense and who not. Nevertheless i recognized your attempt to help finding consense. thanks for this anyway. Blablaaa (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend again reading the link. Blablaaa (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

response
you want me to respond or was it kinda open letter ?Blablaaa (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to have already done so, and I'm afraid your post perfectly captures the problem. Except in my last post I haven't criticised you at all anywhere Blablaa, in fact I've pretty much gone out of my way not to (surely you don't perceive this as an attack?!?). Nor have I claimed anything about anyone else's actions or motives. I have tried to treat everyone equally within the confines of this discussion. If you can find an attack then I apologise, but more likely you're looking for something that isn't there.


 * I didn't invest "a big amount of time to critizise you again", it took ten minutes to write that, and it was worth it for the long term saving in time I'm making in the future. However, it would take substantially more than 5 minutes to wade through the wall of text at the Casualties of WWII talk page and understand it - more likely it would need at least several hours. And for what? If you were right, would we suddenly have resolved the issue we were discussing? "Enigma lied in a post, so the answer to the infobox issue is....". There was nothing constructive to be gained in resolving that, just like there was nothing to be gained by discussing your bad language (Blablaas uncivil language and Wiki's gutless response), your appearance at ANI (Repeated violations of NPA by Blablaa), your motives, your accusations of bias or your posting style (POsts in the middle of sections) which I have largely ignored (with one exception). A whole thread about your spelling or posting won't help solve the infobox issue anymore than starting a new argument about Enigma. I remained - as far as reasonably possible - neutral.


 * This discussion now occupies more than 3/4 of the entire milhist talk page, and I have no intention of starting a new one that will achieve nothing. Nor will I allow this discussion to drag me down any further as it descends into wikidrama territory. My interests in the discussion were purely to achieve a positive outcome to the benefit of everyone, so I'm afraid any suggestion of impropriety on my part is the last straw. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And for what? If you were right for what??? for seeing that at least one is not interessted in finding consense, that at least one has the mission to dispute everything which is said by me. A very very important information i guess. But you want to believe that all try to find consense. Be happy with this. Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Arnhem Report
Hey dude. I have a battered copy of 'The Arnhem Report: The Story Behind The Bridge Too Far' by Iain Johnstone next to me that I don't have a use for. It was written by Johnstone when he was a journalist who covered the making of the film. It's not just a puff piece, it looks at the difficulties caused by the stars, what they thought about the film, the budget problems and the astronomical salaries. It also covers the filming in detail, the veterans brought in to play extras etc. If you're interested in it, it's yours. Skinny87 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem, I did think you had a book like that, but couldn't remember. No problems, I'll pop it back on the bookshelf. Skinny87 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood (again)
Hi

I have put some more sources into the talk page at Charnwood.

I think that they offer more light on the subject and wondered if you feel they should be included. It may mean that some more material would be added to the article or that they can be used as refs. I am not sure as to which of those it should be though.

I will also point this out to Eyeserene and Enigma. (Blaaa is already aware so I don't need to point it out to him)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re RfC
Thanks so much for taking the time to do that Steve. As a technical point you won't now be able to certify, but I'm sure you're aware of that (and we have the required two sigs anyway). The only thing still missing is a diff or two that shows you tried to resolve the dispute in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section, but I can do that if you like. EyeSerene talk 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - I know you are busy but since this is my first major contrib to a major issue can I ask you if my synopsis need cutting down ? The draft seems a little long and my diffs may be a little off so do not want my input to make things worse. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WOW! I had not a clue about that ! It strikes me as odd that there are so many woodhenges close to stone ones - maybe they came in pairs ? Anyway thanks for that ! I will read up later. As I recall from looking at Google earth there are an overwhelming number of barrows, circles and other strange features within 1 km of Stonehenge - I just looked on there and found that there is a definite green circle just where the BBC say they found it...interesting and thanks for that ! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the RfC I will try and cut it down a bit. The comment about my diffs was more that they are not in a real chronological order rather than any other problem Chaosdruid (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bike ride
Good luck with that ! I used to be an avid cyclist but had to give up after I developed arthritis. I miss it so much - gf and I years ago took a cycling holiday round southern tip of Eire - avg 60 miles a day and absolutely loved it. One of my best holidays...Chaosdruid (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow - that is a nice trip :¬) Maybe you can do an A-team on him when you get near a museum like they did everytime they needed Mr T to go flying !
 * Thats a lot of distance - I take it you aren't doing it on one of those WWII bikes ?
 * My friend is disabled due to losing his leg in a mbike accident years ago and we keep talking about the "Trip of the Two Cripples" - we were going to go round the Normandy beaches and spend some time looking inland for old dug outs and implacements got as far as the Goole earth images but we never have the time or money for it really - hope you have a good time and take lots of pics ! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Knock sounds a bit harsh lol - use ehter and tell her she just fainted ? may not work if it happens two or three times a day though :¬)
 * On a more serious note just remember they drive on the wrong side of the road lol
 * Ok I need to stop now - my comments getting more and more silly, I'm going to blame the caffeine intake though which I took as I was planning to scan all my Carnac pics and put into Microsoft's wonderful Photosynth as the ones there aren't very comprehensive  - gave up though after an hour of scanning lol Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Norton henge
Just thought I'd tell you another henge as been discovered in Hertfordshire at a place called Norton at Stapleton's Field near Letchworth. I'll prob create an article soon although there seems little to go on at the mo. Simply south (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Now doing a further search i have found 2 other small sites, one close to this one at a place called Weston and one in Bedfordshire. This now makes me wonder if there are henges all over the UK. If so, so you think an article should be created listing them? Simply south (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Chat
How's the break going? I trust you're not too saddle-sore :) EyeSerene talk 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its great thanks. Perhaps unsurprisingly we were well behind schedule heading trough the Netherlands, but unlike XXX Corps we did cross the Nederijn (24 hours later than I planned!). Actually I was really glad my friend slowed me down, otherwise I'd have just whipped through the route and missed a lot. I'm still planning a return trip in the spring though!
 * Next up a wedding, then a week in a (thankfully slightly larger) tent in Cornwall. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If only XXX Corps had only been 24 hours behind schedule... I don't envy you the wedding (unless of course it's yours, in which case congratulations!), but Cornwall sounds nice. It's a few years since I've been down that way. Hope the weather holds out for you ;) EyeSerene talk 20:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, not mine but I predict fun at this one, it being a close knit group of friends attending. Weather was fairly changeable in the Netherlands, so Cornwall can't really affect me too much. Looking forward to Pendennis Castle! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator?
Will you be re-standing as a coordinator? I haven't seen you fill in your standing for reelection tab at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2010, and given that we still have room for a few more candidates to be elected/reelected I was curious to know if you were going to stand again. I would personally be very happy to welcome you back, but if you would prefer not to stand again I can certainly understand that. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that the users of our project be the ones who determine all matters related to the coordinator bit, to that end if you can stand I would like to see you stand (unless you would prefer not to for personal or professional reasons) and then let the community electors figure out whether they want you back or not. For my part I would be happy to have you back as a coordinator; even a less than fully active coordinator can still be useful to the project. As always, I leave the final decision with you, but know that I personally have no reservations about you standing again even if you think you will be a little less active this term than last term. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you're not signed up yet, I hope I didn't dissuade you. Since I kind of fumbled around with what I was saying, I'll break my silence and say: you've always seemed really helpful and knowledgeable and I think you'd be an excellent coord.  Whether you're a coord or not, your continued participating in review processes would be much appreciated. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, no just got home from work and turned on to complete my sign up. Don't worry, wasn't offended or upset by the chat at all. Although I do hope that I at least was a good co-ord rather than "would be"? I assume what you meant! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Brain got confused, I meant that the candidacy "would go" well. Yes, "was" a good co-ord :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well after all that ... I voted after all. It was a hard call, I'm normally not comfortable voting in an election I'm running in, but then I saw the vote comments and it looked like "party time", which I'd like to see more of around Wikipedia. The natural place to draw the line for me was: if I'm bumping into someone all the time (or used to, in the case of Dana), I voted ... but that means that there are many great candidates, including you, I didn't vote for, and I'm sorry about that. Maybe I can help you with articles or something. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather like the approval system we use at milhist - it does seem to engender an amicable election process. However, I really only dropped by to say that I'm glad Steve decided to run in the end :) EyeSerene talk 14:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers EyeSerene. I gave it some hard thought and decided to stand anyway (figuring I can still be more use as a slightly less active co-ord). I think I perhaps view wiki a bit differently to many other editors who might see it with a certain amount of indifference (present company excepted). Although its online I think of it just like my other volunteering activities, but I do like the fact that (as you say) this one allows you a bit more flexibility. Wiki has done a fair bit for me over time, not only is it a very useful source of info that I exploit a lot as a starting point for further research, but it (along with many other offline activities) has helped me acquire skills and knowledge. I like the freedom it allows and the whole way it works, and I'd like to help keep it running. I can only offer so much (beyond article writing) at the moment but would rather do that than nothing at all.
 * Dank please don't be sorry, I honestly don't have any problem with your perspective on this. I am less active right now and I fully expect that to be a point of consideration with other editors. Tom's comment above echoes exactly what I was thinking this week and I didn't have any intention of disguising my lower input just to get elected - this isn't an ego thing or anything like that. Like I've said above its more to do with me helping out. If you'd like to help with any articles do of course feel free (you might see more of me that way!). Ranger Steve (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do that! - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bill Millin
Thank you so much for the help! It is extremely appreciated! ~ Itzjustdrama  does not equal   a Drama Llama  13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Response
Let me tell you something, with the exception of 1800-1899 and 1900-1944, I spent a lot of time reformatting the lists (I'll do the last ones soon). To have a group of people just show up and redo my work is disgusting. B-Machine (talk) 21:28, 14 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 19:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Warrior class ironclad
You might be interested to know that I've finished this article. It might be time to work on the individual ship articles together and get them up to GA. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How To
How do I delete an article? I forgot the process. Respond on my talk page. B-Machine (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want the steps. B-Machine (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the link at first. Sorry. B-Machine (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Centaur
Rather than digress, on the project page. I've looked through Fletcher's Universal Tank though it describes the development of Centaur relative to Cromwell and Cavalier no luck on plans. It does have a photo of Hunter] (there's other pictures of Hunter in the IWM collection) the subject of the ww2 drawing link. There's no good diagrams of Centaur on www.the-blueprints.com but there are several of Cromwell. Might I ask what you are doing with the plans? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have to admit that I'm curious as to where this could be going. Skinny87 (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For interior and exterior details of Cromwell, I would say that Fletchers, Cromwell Tank Vehicle History and Specification 1983 HMSO has to have some of the best detail, as it includes an abridged form of the Cromwell Mark I (6pdr) "service instruction manual". I now know the turret has 12 gallons of water tanks! and 1/35 scale exterior plans of the Cromwell. Might that be of some use in your endeavours?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much guys. I had already looked at Fletcher et al's Cromwell Cruiser (Osprey publishing) for some guidance. I'm also likely to visit the RE museum and library again before the year is out, and I'm pretty sure there's some stuff there. Also just got hold of a Tamiya 1/35 model of the Centaur IV (with decals for Hunter) which includes a bit more detail. I'll look into Fletcher's other book, cheers for that Graeme. Some colleagues of mine have just finished surveying one, so we're curious about some features. Plus I'll be dealing with a small education program about it (hence the model) and plans are always handy to accompany all the other things we have about them.
 * Wightlink is pretty slow, but it's the expense that kills me. Try as I might though, I can't seem to build up enough speed on the mountain bike to jump the Solent. Not sure a Centaur will help, although I could certainly try to hold the ferries to ransom! Ranger Steve   Talk  17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Cromwell Tank Vehicle History and Specification book (Fletcher isn't actually credited in it, but its from the Tank Museum and his style is recognisable) is short on what you are after afvhandbooks.com do a pdf "reprint" of the full user handbook for the Cromwell Mk I and Mark VII though not a workshop manual for either.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Expedition d'Irlande
I've explained the reasons for my edits on the Talk Page. Me and Jacky don't seem to be able to "come to a consensus" - why is his version regarded as any more valid than mine? My edits were made in good faith, he reverted. I explained my reasons, he contradicted me, and continues to delete sourced material. Why are you rebuking me alone? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximilian Schell
The lead should be a brief summary of the subject. To have the lead say he's swiss right next to the infobox which states "born in austria" is confusing. Do I really need to read the entire article to discover that he might've been born in Austria but moved to Switzerland? Wacky. Undoing a good faith edit like mine, meant to clarify this, is inappropriate and an edit war basically. --Hutcher (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I didn't undo it. However, as I said in my edit summary, he isn't known for saying "I'm Swiss but I was born in Austria". However he did say it, so it is used as a reference. Shoving it in the first sentence of the lead as if it is one of his most famous achievements is, in my humble opinion, what you might call whacky. It doesn't matter where he as born, he is Swiss - that is what's important. Austrian origin is a vague term - were his parents Austrian? Was he raised in Austria? It's fairly unclear from such a ambiguous term and inappropriate in the lead. I also find your description of edit warring rather confusing, but do feel free to go to ANI if you like. Ranger Steve   Talk  07:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I need your help
At the 1992 Los Angeles riots article, an IP address user vandalized the article. I tried reverting them, but I could only revert one. Is there any way to revert them all? B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your note of 25 Oct
I've mass-reverted back to the last known good version. Apologies for the delay (I took a week off) EyeSerene talk 09:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Expédition d'Irlande
I believe Ledennierhomme has returned to Expédition d'Irlande. At any rate, an ip keeps trying to revert to his preferred version of the article. I've reverted several times, but I don't know if you'd be interested in discussing the issue on the article talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge
Hi. Please refrain from making edits which make the article worse. Please give me your rationale for the edits you made. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something I notice you failing to do. I've replied on the talk page and I'd prefer you kept your unnecessarily condescending comments there (or to yourself quite frankly). Ranger Steve   Talk  19:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

However
Have you seen WP:EDITORIAL? Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 14 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) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a comment in a Move Page request
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.

Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc...

Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)