User talk:Sturmvogel 66/Archive 8

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scoring
Very close. I was waiting for you to claim the "15 articles destubbed on any listed building or populated settlement - 50 points" section of the bonuses. You'll have to work it out what you're claiming on that and list all of your destubs in the other claims section of the main entries page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

On this I'm of the opinion that you should both be crowned the winner as it's been extraordinarily close and you and Cwmhiraeth have both performed astoundingly well, but only one person can win the main £100 prize!♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Contest winner


Congrats on the win Sturmvogel, you can proudly display these on your user page!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was fun. And many thanks to you for running for contest!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66 congratulations on winning in the Awaken the Dragon contest! Could you please email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk from the email in which you want your prize to be sent to?. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Caps misunderstanding
Hello.

Wherever did you get that idea from that numerals don't count as first word, and that the second word thus should be capitalized? Please show me the applicable guideline or style guide.

And why don't you apply it consistently throughout the article, for instanc, on the complement, "1660 officers and crewmen", which, according to you should be "1660 Officers and crewmen"?

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, because I've gotten about 60-odd FAs passed using that exact formulation. If this is a problem then you need to start participating at WP:FAC. I don't think the issue is actually addressed anywhere in the MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it's time we find out. I've started a talk page discussion, and a discussion at WP:DRN (because I suspect there will be few other people at the talkpage).
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And how do you explain the "1660 officers and crewmen"? HandsomeFella (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't because I didn't pay that much attention to it. I've self-reverted as I've looked at it some more and it does look better uncapitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an ... awfully quick turn to DRN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

HMS Ramillies (1892)
Hi, I notice that you've been working on some for the Royal-Sovereign class battleships as well. Ramillies is up for GAR and it's about to pass, but the reviewer has queried the following phrase: "She had been constructed at such a slight tilt that it took nearly an hour and a half to travel down the slips and into the water". I can see why someone who is not versed in ship design would not get this, but I am not sure how to make it more clear to the average reader. Do you have any advice? Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
 * I think that Burt shouldn't have used the word tilt; it makes me think of something tilted from side to side. What I think is that he meant that the slipway had so little elevation that gravity wasn't much help in launching her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a much clearer way of saying it! Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Re: Your message on HMS Lancaster
Thanks for your suggestion.
 * == HMS Lancaster == Here's a GA-rated article on one of Lancaster's sister ships that you can use as a model to incorporate all of the voyage material you added: HMS Essex (1901).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain: I prepared the list on the whereabouts of the HMS Lancaster, to help me in my research of the History of Veracruz in 1914. I was more interested in dates and places than in events not related to my area of study. I simply thought I'd share it with Wikipedia, in the format that better suited my purposes.

As to the HMS Essex, finding her logbook in the Internet was something quite extraordinary for me. I vividly remember that Sunday morning, finding it after a Google Search, e-mailing one of the curators of the collection with a critical question (Re 21 Apr 1914, what does "US Pct B/S" mean?), getting her reply an hour or so afterwards (mind you: Sunday morning in Mexico City, mid afternoon in London), and corroborating my claim (based, of course, on US sources) that there had been no terrestrial attack on the Naval Academy that day - a key concept contrary to the official Mexican History of the Occupación estadounidense de Veracruz de 1914. HMS Essex and HMS Berwick, by their presence in Veracruz on those fateful days, were front-line witnesses to the events. What a delight to be doing research in times of Internet and Wikipedia! I gave a talk on this subject, at a Symposium presided by the Mexican Navy, in Veracruz, June 2014.

I've just noticed that it was I who edited the logbook reference into the HMS Essex (1901) article, on 2 Apr 2014 -- just after some of your edits!

I will be getting back to you, on other items.

Thanks again for your message. I'll keep it in mind.Wkboonec (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TFA 31 May
I would like to run Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier on 31 May, but as you had one of your battleship articles running earlier in the month at short notice, you may feel that another is an imposition. It won't be scheduled before next Friday, so give it a bit of thought & let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shokaku class ran last week, but I have no problem if you want to schedule another one of my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, of course it did ... I'm losing my marbles. Forget this, I'll try not to trouble you for a while and enquire about medication. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just make sure to get the good stuff!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlog Drive
Greetings. I was wondering if you could start a new backlog reduction drive. My proposal can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.--Catlemur (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Devonport Dockyard on West Country Challenge list
Hi You added Devonport Dockyard to the core list for the WWest Country Challenge. It s a dab page - did you mean HMNB Devonport (which is already on) or Devonport Naval Base? Could I also ask a favour - when you add entries can you also add them to the relevant county pages please (as it is doing my head in trying to keep them in sync).&mdash; Rod talk 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'll fix it pronto. And I'll add the new entries to the various county pages as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Devonshire
Hello, According to the article on the Duke of Devonshire there is only a slight connection between the the dukes and the county of Devon so this seemed too little to make a Core article. If you decide otherwise I won't object to it being added again.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, the connection between the title and their nominal geographic location seems pretty thin in general once the Stuarts start ennobling people right and left, but it's not anything I feel strongly about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Sulina?
I'm not finding any sources online for it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have to do more research to definitively state whether or not any "battle" actually happened. If it did it was probably just a short bombardment as Midilli only had 105s until early '17 when she swapped them out for 150s. Not quite ready to send it to AfD, though, as I'd really like to get this guy tapping into Romanian-language stuff if we could. OTOH, he's argumentative and a Romanian nationalist enough that it may not be worth the effort to bring him up to speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not just that haha, I'm reminded of a quote about Gamergate that seems to apply here (parahprased): "the worst they do is force you to waste your time." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to inform you that the article's factual accuracy was disputed and it was subsequently deleted. Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Had a look at Langensiepen & Güleryüz, and they made no mention of Midilli (or any other cruiser) operating off Sulina in "the autumn of 1916". Midilli did lay a minefield in the area on 3 May 1916, but there's no mention of a "battle" with Elisabetha. And according to Halpern, the Ottoman fleet was inactive due to coal shortages by late 1916. So I'm not particularly inclined to believe it either. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Article on HMS Essex - the "Transcript" has links to the original logbook
You may have overlooked: the "Transcript" is much more than that, it is actually the original logbook.

For instance, for "21 April 1914" (crucial for the understanding of the US Occupation of Veracruz), in the line just above the heading, the transcript shows the link: http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-41085/ADM%2053-41085-060_0.jpg

I suggest the reference "Transcript" be changed to something more meaninful like "Logbook (original and transcipt)" or "Logbook (with transcript)" or simply "Logbook".

Having the "Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1 Era" online has been quite extraordinary for rewriting the history of Veracruz in 1914.

Saludos cordiales, Wkboonec (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Archived
Hey man, I archived the first 500 or so sections of your talk page because it was slowing my entire computer down. I hope that's alright! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh! But you might consider updating your machine if you can. I've got a couple of old 2GB RAM sticks of that I can let you have for cheap if you're using an elderly desktop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your computer is, but mine's actually pretty new—although it could be the browser, I suppose. In any case, editing all of that was a pain and slow. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how that shouldn't have been a problem. Huh, all I ever did was go to the end and edit the individual section. Easy peasy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hey Sturmvogel, so I'm working on end-of-round stuff for the GA Cup, and it has been brought to my attention that three of the articles you submitted were passed to GA, right under the deadline, on the 29th. Technically, they qualify for Round 3, but it's your responsibility to mark them as passed on your submissions page. If I were to count them, it wouldn't change the results, anyway, and since they passed during Round 3, they wouldn't be eligible to count in the finals. You'd still move onto the finals even if I didn't count them, although it's possible that you'd move forward as a pool winner and not as a wildcard. All that to say that since you didn't mark them as passed before the end of the round, I'm unable to count them towards your final Round 3 score. But you moved forward anyway, so congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, honestly I forgot about the deadline. I was sort of thinking that it was the end of the month. So do they count for this next round?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. No, the judges have decided to not count these reviews. No worries, though, you moved on to the finals, and you're posed well to victory. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review
Hi Sturmvogel66, You may recall that some time ago you carried out a good article review for me. That article, HMS Emerald (1795), is now at Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 and I wondered if you might make some comments and even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey/Gwynedd Challenge
Planning on runnng this without prizes on June 13-20. If you're interested in contributing put your name down at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey-Gwynedd Challenge
Just a reminder that this is now open!♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
As you can see, precisely 1 week. May we please talk now? 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but be advised that I'm in a conference for the next few days and can't really respond until things are over for the day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I only wish to ask you, to try and enable me to edit. I have unique things to do, that nobody ever done before, nor do they plan on doing. Time has passed since I got banned, and I have changed. I refined my editing skills, and now I too will only edit and create based on sources, even Romanian sources at times. There are many things about my country that have been left to oblivion, and all I want is to be allowed to bring them to surface, for they do not deserve to be left to oblivion. Romanian battles, Romanian technological achievements, all need to be spread about, and as I am at the source, I think I can say that I can do it the best. We are humans, we come and go, but the Wiki will likely be here for the coming generations. I do not want those future generations not to know about Romania's great history, often overlooked for reasons I genuinely cannot comprehend. Take this for instance: After the secret was revealed in 1914 that Romania was part of the Triple Alliance, people continued to call it the Triple Alliance, despite being revealed to have a 4th member, as if we did not even exist. And that genuinely hurts me. Or sometimes ignoring Romanian military contribution and overlapping us with other powers, even though their troops had little bearing on our actions. Like calling the Allied forces on Romanian land in WW1 Russo-Romanian, as if the Russians were the majority when they were only 50,000 out of 700,000, the rest, the overwhelming majority being Romanians. Or calling "Germans" the mostly Romanian force that besieged Odessa, as you yourself saw. Or "forgetting" to mention us at the invasion of Crimea, way too often stating that "The Germans occupied Crimea", again, as if we would not even exist. This is abusive and dismissive, towards us as a nation, and especially to those who gave their lives for Romania, as Romanians, only to be ignored or labelled as something else. I want to correct this grave set of injustices towards us, and to spread about what we have good. Please, allow me to do that. Help me even, if you'd please. I know my mistakes and I regret my ways, all I ask is 1 more chance to genuinely contribute with good faith, reliable sources, and unaddressed information. I am also aware of my uncivil anger-induced behavior, but I will gladly control it if that would mean being able to edit in peace, and not having to fear that it would be undone in hours. Just please. Help me. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you're coming from, but a non-trivial portion of what you're doing smacks of Romanian nationalism. We all have biases, of course, and we need you to recognize yours and try to account for it.
 * The way to do what you want is to make changes verified with reliable sources at every turn, and taking care to make sure that those reliable sources are accurately reflected in your edits. If, for example, it's a battle between Russo-Romanian and German forces, the way forward isn't to change "Russo-Romanian"—the use of "Russo" first there does not connotate that the Russians had more troops. What you could do is document troop strengths in the infobox, with reliable sources. The article itself shouldn't literally say "this was a Romanian-led battle"—just write it like a normal battle article (here's an example) and people can judge for themselves. Each case differs, but generally speaking if it's not normally included in a Wikipedia article (eg the refit of that Romanian cruiser, which at best deserves one sentence in the text in my opinion), you shouldn't be adding it.
 * The bottom line is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Your edits need to reflect that. Also like Sturm has said, it would be a lot easier if you'd register an account, if only so we could ping you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But Mister Ed, I do have an account. I was banned due to my fury issues and careless editing, but I changed and still changing. I said some bad and hateful things, I admit, but right now, all I wish is to contribute with new things. I already got the srouces for what I want to do. Took me hours to find them. All I ask is 1 more chance. Under supervision, don't really care, just 1 more chance to properly contribute. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more tired than I expected, so I don't think that I'll be able to put together a request to lift your banning until Friday my time, so please be patient until then. Remember, though, it's not guaranteed that they will agree to do so, in which case you'll have to wait out the full six months.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 No problem, I will wait until Friday. Tell them that here the summer holiday just started. For the next 2 months, I will be able to do ample and meaningful and novel contributions, but the coming school year will be the toughest. I will hardly be able to have time to edit. Plus that, this autumn there will be 100 years since Romania entered WW1. To mark the event, I wish to make articles about Romanian battles and weapons of that time. It is important, because a centennial is only once. Please, just tell them what I just said, and how much I can offer Wikipedia in this period. Tell them that I am willing to accept strict and constant supervision. Please, just let me back for 2 months. Afterwards, you can ban me for an entire year if you want. But this year is crucial, this is the time to make the things that truly matter to my country. In the end, please, do your best. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an admin here at the conference who specializes in unblocking people and I've discussed your case with her. She's willing to look at your case, but emphasized that you will be on a very short leash until you demonstrate that you fully understand WP:NPOV and WP:V, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 I am willing to accept. I do not mind talking to you about the things I do, on the contrary. My immediate intentions are to correct and improve some sources on some articles and also add some more information on them, well-sourced, ofcourse. Then, I intend to greatly improve the Category:Naval battles involving Romania. It is really depressing and off-putting to see only one article there. I gathered good sources for at handful of Romanian naval battles, even a Romanian source. I wish to create articles about our naval actions that would make that category much more comprehensive. I also aim to correct pronunciation errors on Romanian names. These are my goals, for the time being. That to be full honest. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that ‎82.79.47.192 has started to edit many articles that you're interested in and I'm fairly certain that you and he are the same. I guess that you couldn't restrain yourself, so I will not be not advocating for you after all unless that IP turns out not to have any connection with your previous IP edits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. Please, excuse my friend, I told him about my situation, showed him the sources I intend to use, and he took it upon himself to do the edits for me. I just talked to him, told him that I am currently discussing being unblocked and asked him to stop because he is doing me more wrong than good...I am sorry myself, but we all need people to confess to about what's going on in our lives. I am also sorry that my IP is changed, I wanted to keep it as it was to keep good faith, but there was a blackout yesterday, and when the power came back on my IP changed too. Please, advocate for me. Do you think I like, to live and hide here like a rat, when all I want to do is good? Trust me, I do not. You know I can offer interesting new things to the Wiki. Please, let me do so. I talked to him and there should be no longer problems at those articles, and I will keep waiting for news from you, about my blocking. I need your help. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a friend who was equally fluent in English and interested enough in the same sorts of things as I am to help me edit. Not to mention with a large amount of time available. While your offenses are not particularly related to WP:ARBEE, you need to read the policy and agree to follow it as a Romanian partisan, particularly its civility points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I will read, carefully. You just please keep supporting my return. I have so, so much to do...To put it brief: I want to take already existing articles in the Romanian Wiki, and make English versions of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and would like your assistance in improving Romanian-related article with Romanian-language sources, but you're making things more difficult for yourself with continuing to evade your blocks. Major point in your favor is that even those edits are generally constructive and not malicious. But it's going to take me and several admins the weekend to decide what to do about you, so remain calm and stop editing. I don't care if you enlist any "friends" or not, just stop. And remember that we probably cannot dedicate as much time as you can to Wiki, so resign yourself to the fact that we will almost always be slow in approving your edits. Evading the terms of your unblocking, if granted, will result in being reblocked for a year, and all the articles that you want to edit will be blocked to IP editors and monitored carefully by me and others. So control your frustration and you can achieve your goals, if you can't, you won't get any of it done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am making those edits as a "business card", to show how many sources I can find on a topic, and how dedicated I am to make any edit be meaningful, sourced and helpful. But very well, this reply to you will be my last edit until I get news from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested that you be unblocked, but I don't know exactly what else either of us might have to do to make that happen. I've requested that you be given the ability to only edit talk pages, so that you and I can discuss your proposed edits in detail for NPOV and any other issues before I make the changes that we've agreed upon. I'm not sure that that's technically possible, but if it isn't, then I want your agreement that you will make no other edits to article pages than those that I approve. If I find out that you've been doing so either under your own user name or an IP address, I'll ask that your block be reinstated and every article that you care about will be protected against edits by IPs. Please don't fuck this up, I believe that you have a real contribution to make, but remember that I have a life of my own to live and other interests, so that I'm not always going to be able to respond to your proposed edits very quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this conversation. I think we may have interacted in the past 82. You need a mentor. I would be willing to act as such. I would seriously ask you to register on the site, as it would greatly increase your credibility. I can put it no other way. Apologies for butting in Sturm. Cheers both. Irondome (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary. Happy to have another set of eyes to help. He does have an account as, but he's been indef blocked for evading the first block. So we'll see what happens.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected a little grammar mistake on Amiral Murgescu, an out of place word. Hope you're okay with that. Also, I am going to soon make an article draft, and show it to you for approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but I don't want you doing anything until we get you unblocked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I shall keep waiting then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I uhh...I'm sorry. It's not that I could not wait, it's just that the time has come for this. This is the very first battle between Romanian and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front of WW2. I had to do it now, not only because it's the anniversary of it, but because it's the 75th anniversary of it. I am sorry, and please forgive me, but as a Romanian, I felt I had the moral obligation to do this, on the 75th anniversary of our entrance in WW2. Draft:Battle of the Chilia Branch 82.79.46.80 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're making it harder for me to justify unblocking you, although I appreciate the fact that you're telling me about these. Please just stop, regardless of any anniversaries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, okay, but 75 years...are only once. And it's not even a real article, just a draft. I don't think it displeases anyone that much. But as there are no more events to mark for a while, I'll stop. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I talk to you about an encyclopedic subject? Not with the purpose of editing, just talk with someone who can actually understand me. I really need to get it off my chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely hate seeing Japan quoted as being more important than Romania in WW1. People might argue "But Japan was a Great Power", yeah look, I don't care what Japan WAS, I care what Japan DID! Do you know what did Japan do? Mobilized in total 800,000 troops, and fought only one battle. You know what did Romania do? Mobilized in total over 1,200,000 troops, and fought almost 20 battles! There is absolutely no reason, to put Japan above Romania when talking about WW1 combatants! Even more, people SO enjoy to maliciously overlook this, but Romania actually was a main belligerent! In the treaty that bound us to join the war, it was specified that we would have equal status with the main Allies! It was all official, signed and approved by all! Equal status with the main belligerents, equals main belligerent! The fact that after the war they changed their minds does not change with anything the fact that, all the time Romania fought in the war, it did so with the official status of main belligerent. In consequence, there is absolutely no reason to have Japan above Romania in the hierarchy of WW1 Allies. Again, it doesn't matter what the status of Japan was, that was a war, not a parade of statuses! Base all your rankings on REAL military merits, because a contribution of 1,200,000 troops, and the loss of half of them, IS NOT SOMETHING TO BRUSH ASIDE!! This is the main source of my wrath: The Wiki pretends to be a fair and neutral place, yet allows and even defends such blatant acts of unjustfulness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with you, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Why does this matter to you so much? We both know that Romanian participated in the war and suffered heavily for it and we should fix anything in Wiki that says differently, provided it can be properly sourced, but I honestly don't take this sort of thing as an insult as you do. And that's the kind of attitude that's going to get you into trouble here. You need to be objective about Romania's part in the wars and the activities of her military and naval units. You've put far too much weight on incidental Romanian participation in major events like the Potemkin Mutiny in the past and that needs to stop. Show me the terms of the treaty in which Romania joined the war and we can see if anything in the main WWI article needs to be changed to better reflect Romanian participation, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But I AM objective. Romania's contribution is greater than Japan in any single possible way, yet Japan is still put above Romania! I feel insulted because they do it "just because". They shove Romania away to make room for Japan, "just because", with no real reason whatsoever! Article VI of the Treaty of Bucharest (1916): Romania has EQUAL status with it's allies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you consider whatever list that you're up in arms against might be ordered chronologically, rather than by size of troop contribution?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're upset about the infobox on the World War I article.
 * But yes, there might be a reason why Japan is listed before Romania. Might have something to do with the fact that Japan entered WWI essentially at the beginning of the war and Romania sat on the sidelines until 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's say it's so about the countries themselves, but I still see no reason to have Japan's leader above Romania's, Serbia's or Russia's. Get to the bottom, Emperor, that's where you belong. 82.79.46.80 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But I am not a threat for anything if unblocked...That's why I tell you all this, so I could take it off my chest and not affect my editing. 82.79.46.80 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So why did you start editing again? I don't know what the delay is, but you are not helping your cause by continuing to evade the block.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fully honest, I fear that I am waiting in vain. That I will be denied anyway and thus my time only be lost. If this will be the case, please, let me edit in peace. I vow, that you will never find real reasons of complaint for my edits, I make sure that all I do is sourced. I just fear I am loosing time in vain... 79.119.91.223 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The more you do this, the more that you make it more likely that your block will be upheld.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, why am I going trough this again? Because I had a fit over half a year ago? True, I was warned about being blocked, but I never imagined it would be for SIX MONTHS!! You people are cruel! Excuse me, did I spread ISIS propaganda or stuff like that? Did I prove myself a danger with my edits? Yeah, I made mistakes, I am sorry, doesn't worth wasting a half a year from my life! And on my FIRST block?! Don't I have the "Yeah, you've been blocked, but since it's the first you're only getting 1 month." I would be okay with that, but NO, I get an indefinite block that I can only appeal after 6 months! Like I am the public enemy number 1 or something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.91.223 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While you're not malicious, you have frequently violated WP:NPOV and that's a serious problem that I was trying to set up mentorship to help you learn better. And you're also using the same sockpuppet tactics used by people who are malicious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there is a need for that. I try to use books in English as my primary source, taking quite a while to find what I need, but I often succeed. Hmm...can I give you what to wirte, and the adjacent source, and you make the edit? Would you be alright with that? 79.119.91.223 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly prefer that we discuss any edits that you propose under your own username, so that you can learn to see what is not NPOV and learn about reliable sourcing, so you can eventually be trusted to make your own edits without supervision.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I can make the effort to wait about most things, but there is one I just CANNOT! Please, do that edit for me! It is very important, and as a matter of fact, a question of principle. Just 1 edit to do for me. Please. 79.119.91.223 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Two more major issues are discrimination and racism. I'm serious. For instance, the Wiki staff had the time to make an article about every single shitty German submarine, no matter the size, no matter the state of completion, could even be just a design, still got it's own article! But Romania built two full-size, modern submarines in WW2, and nobody says anything! Really! Even the 2 articles about them that only recently appeared, did so only with my prompting! I ask you, is a paper submarine, a mere design, a drawing, better than 2 modern full-size submarines with action and history? What was the fault of Rechinul and Marsuinul, to be ignored like that? That they were not German? This is pure, blatant discrimination endorsed by the Wiki staff! Neutral huh? Yeah, sure. Another thing that's wrong is the over-association when talking about us. People in general when talking about us tend to ignore us proper, and instead focus on our relationship with others, like we're an identity-less vessel, like we have nothing of our own, like we don't exist! If you want to talk about us, then talk about US!! I also don't like when people brush off our achievements and put emphasis on our failures. Like the Romania during World War I article did not long ago. The article praised the Germans for leading the conquest of most of Romania, instead of praising the Romanians, for taking on ALL of the Central Powers and still surviving! They act like the 1916 campaign was all, often completely ignoring our great victories in 1917, and then after we signed the peace treaty, many put us under German control on maps, despite the fact that the peace treaty officially recognized Romania's independence, not imposing any official form of vassalage towards Germany! Not to mention how they call us shit because we re-entered the war just 1 day before it was over, as if we were supposed to know it was going to be over the very next day! We didn't! And don't even get me started on our 23 August 1944 "betrayal"! "Boo! Traitors! You switched sides!" and shit like that. Look, we merely exited the Axis on 23 August 1944, and offered the Germans a peaceful retreat. On the following 2 nights, they bombed us and tried to seize our capital, effectively declaring war to us! Are we really at fault for declaring war on them on 25 August, after they made it clear that that's what they wanted? The point is they should stop with the "They changed sides and declared war on their allies!" and be more like: "They dumped their allies and let them retreat, but declared them war after their offer was refused and they were attacked." And don't take me with "But that's what the source says", ignore it and search another one, more "neutral"! You know, there is this expression: "If you don't got something nice to say, then don't say anything at all!" In short, people go out of their way to brush us aside and make sure we're ignored, and when they do have to bring us up they try to talk shit about us as much as possible. And I am so angry and frustrated because I am the only one who seems to refuse to accept it, all of you just don't give a damn about the blatant racism that is right in front of your eyes!


 * On your first point, you don't seem to understand that the content on Wikipedia appears when people come along and contribute it. Several years ago, my interest in Latin American naval history—a very underserved area—was kindled by  saying "[...] perhaps do something about the List of battleships where there's lots of battleships which don't even have an article at all! OK some of them do but are red-linked there, but even so, it's a classic bit of WP:BIAS. You want MILHIST to be a "quality" encyclopedia - where's the article on the [Brazilian battleship] Minas Gerais then?" Without that, Latin American naval content would quite possibly be in the same boat (pun intended) as Romania. In short, people on Wikipedia write about what they are interested in. It's a hobby, not a job. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed Yet another strong reason to unblock me. It seems I am the only one interested enough to do such things. It took a second to be blocked, why does it takes months to be unblocked?..Just because people make mistakes doesn't mean they become useless for good! It might sound arrogant on my part, but I do believe I deserve a second chance. I will share my opinions before any major edits, and I will use good sources I spend hours to find. Please, just let me back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.91.223 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? I need you to upload some picture files... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.173 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, you can ignore me and all right, but I have something that really, really bothers me. I went on this category on Wikipedia Commons, that had all the picture files for warships of the Romanian Navy available, but no picture, of a WW2 or WW1 era warship, built or assembled in Romania! And yes mind you, there are plenty of them! We built 2 submarines and 1 minelayer, started to build and launched 4 minesweepers, assembled 4 river monitors, and completed 6 motor torpedo boats from Dutch-built hulls (we outfitted, engined and armed them). So there are 17 warships in total! Seventeen! And what bothers me even more right, is that you guys here, on the Wiki, had time to upload photos of all Polish-built warships of that period! Which are really 6 puny minesweepers and 2 even more puny river monitors, that are even lighter than some tanks and in total less than half of the warships we took part in building, or built fully! Like, look, Amiral Murgescu was the Romanian warship with the most kills, the first large warship fully built in Romania, and she saved the ass of highly decorated a German general when Crimea was evacuated in 1944! Yet you "serious" and "neutral" people, couldn't be bothered to upload a picture of her, thinking that dealing with a handful of puny Polish minesweepers, that were lost in the first days of the war, is somehow much more important! And don't even get me started on the submarines! According to you guys, two modern full-size submarines, the only ones built in a whole quarter of Europe at that time, are completely brushable aside! "Romanian submarines? Pffft, please! I got this little German barge to make a file for!" This is the main reason I was so obsessed with Elisabeta, picture-wise, she is the closest we could get! We fitted her with her main guns, at least it's something! all that bother could be avoided, if you could have bothered to post at least 2-3 pictures! Tell me, do I really ask too much? Is it really a super-human effort for you, to post 1 minelayer and 2 submarines, or maybe even a river monitor? 4 photos man! And all of you guys who are watching! I don't think I ask you to push a mountain, when I request a few minutes of your time to post 4 photos, for some really deserving, and wrongfully disregarded warships! 79.113.133.11 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!
Snicker. I like mine with cream cheese and strawberry syrup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter Hore, "Battleships"
Hi! I've translated Erzherzog Karl-class battleship article to polish and during GA Review (on our Wiki it's more like GA Voting) someone mentioned, that Erzherzog Karl had been ceded to France, but it had ran aground during voyage to Britian, and it didn't make sense. This information refers to Hore's "Battleships". I would do it myself, but closest library that has this book is about 1000 kilometeres from my home and I am afraid, that if i buy this book, it won't be delivered to me before the end of voting or my trip on holidays. So I would like to ask if You could tell me what really Hore wrote about this event. Maybe it wasn't cruise to Britian but actually to France? I would be very grateful if You would answer me. You can leave message to me here or on my en.Wikipedia user talk page. Thank You! Mati7 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't have that book to verify the citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania-class battleship
Just curious on Pennsylvania-class battleship as to why you moved the Portal:Battleships link to "External links"? It isn't outside of Wikipedia. Just want to make sure I'm putting things in the right places. I was copying what I'd seen on another page. Should I not have added it yet? Is it only added to pages that are up to par, so to say. On the New York-class battleship page its in the "See also" section. I'd rather get it right the first time than have you have to follow me and correct me. No disrespect indended, I value your opinion. Thanks. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The see also section in the NY-class BB article looks horrible to my eyes because it's unbalanced with all that white space to the left of the portal and commons links. If you merge it into the external links then things look more balanced with the text of the links on the left and the portal and commons boxes on the right. That's my preferred solution and I've used it on many FA-quality articles. As you might expect, everybody has their own opinions on that sort of thing and the WP:MOS doesn't lay out a strict format. Forex, the Iowa-class battleship article has a portal bar above all the notes and other stuff in a see-also section. Logical, but I don't like how it looks and would prefer it to be down at the bottom above the navbox. But I'm know that that's just my opinion and it lacks the visual awfulness of the unbalanced see-also section in the NY-class BB article, so I'm not gonna try to impose my opinion on the article.
 * Thanks for asking me about this, I know that we've butted heads before over what level of detail is appropriate for the infoboxes and I don't think that either one of us was really happy with the results. While there isn't a prescribed way to do ship articles, I would suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit and look at the FA-class BB articles that aren't US-related, if you haven't done so already, and take note of how they're formatted and written. I always find it useful to see a variety of different approaches so you have a better idea of what other people have done successfully and how you might adopt certain things and reject others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advise, that makes sense, I agree with your idea that it would look better above the navbox. I will be moving it on the NY-class. I've been adding refits in seperate Ship Info boxes like I think you suggested, I think it looks a lot less cluttered than when there are a bunch of date references to changes in armament. I hope you think it looks better. Now on to my next problem. I see you reverted all my changes to the reference section on the Penn-class BB's. I must say I was unaware of the rule that you quoted as to why, but I'm just wondering, it says to avoid making changes and in my defense I'd like to know if you think I hurt the article by making these changes or if you did it just because the rule suggestes that these changes not be made. The reason I did it is because when you click on a footnote number it takes you to a reference that then you have to xref on your own by looking at the books in the reference section. With the changes I made you can click on the name in the hover box and it takes you straight to the reference. I hope I'm making sense. It was my hope to make the article easier to see what book, articles, papers the cite is refering to. Thank you. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that multiple infoboxes look much less cluttered than one jammed full of dates and information. I'd suggest that you limit them to just two per article and limit the second one to only the things that changed to reduce duplication, as I've gotten some complaints that ship infoboxes dominate their articles. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the ship's basic information, not a detail reference on its own.
 * I wouldn't expect that you'd know about the rule since you don't nominate your articles for WP:GA or better, where the rules are enforced. But it was introduced to avoid edit wars as people often have strong preferences as to which formats they prefer. While I acknowledge that the sfn format has makes some things easier for the reader, I personally hate it as it's more trouble to type out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you very much for your help. I've been trying to come up with a style that looks pleasing but still conveys as much information as possible, I totally agree that maybe I was getting carried away with info. I've tried to dial it back. I agree that for some ships I've found that the info box is longer that the main article, on more than a few I've deleteted all my changes because of this.
 * You are correct about the rules, I've really just been looking at what I think are nicely laid out pages and then change others to match. I'll lay off GA's and FA's until I've learned more and look at stubs and such. Thank you for all of your help and taking your time to educate me. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While FAC can be a bear until you get used to every little quirk of the MOS, I'd encourage you to consider your stuff for GA. The articles only have be generally complete and mostly compliant with the MOS, so it's much easier standard to satisfy. Take a look at some of the ship GA nominations at WP:GAN, watchlist them, and see how the reviewer handles them. Then compare those articles to your own stuff and make the appropriate changes. That's kinda how I learned to write quality wiki articles myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ... and formidable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Today: Russian battleship Potemkin, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Today: HMS Collingwood (1908), based on the recent publication of her ship's log! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Today: Mutsu! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Today: an ocean liner that was converted into an aircraft carrier! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Revenge (1892)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup
Sorry to be a bother, just need a judgement call here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

NARA-sponsored contest
I'm working on the draft for the contest here: User:Dominic/Challenge. I'd love if you could take a look. I am borrowing ideas for the points system from other contests, and offering both cash and merchandise prizes (hoping to secure more of those, if possible). Let me know if you have any thoughts—and feel free to edit it. I was thinking this could be a MILHIST project, and that the WikiProject could help facilitate it in terms of judging, promotion, etc. I don't have a name yet, either. Dominic·t 18:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping! Just wanted to put this back on your radar. I was at a conference all last week, but I'd really like to get back to work on this. It would be great to get final rules/scoring decided, so we can make sure NARA legal is okay with it, and then also to finalize the timeline. Let me know if you can take a look. Thanks! Dominic·t 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi, since I've posted about this elsewhere I would like to address this directly, since continuing on that thread would be off topic. I've recently seen commentary that made me somewhat uncomfortable such as:


 * Edit summary: "these deletions are not in consensus in the Milhist community"
 * Another: "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". I
 * This discussion between MilHist coordinators: "I've also had encounters with the diehard anti-Nazis, to my chagrin", while the rest of the participants looked on.

I am concerned about this discourse, suggesting that my alleged "anti-Nazi" attitudes are "detrimental" to "en Wikipedia" and that "all coordinators [should] keep an eye out for this behaviour." Do you have any thoughts on how this can be resolved amicably? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * K.e., aka wikihound, you don't do yourself much of a favor when you drag every dissent over at r/SWS (ShitWehraboosSay) with the sole purpose to comminate your WP colleagues (Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, MisterBee etc) as "admirer" for the "nazi-fancruft" - or as "Wehraboo" as notable in the circle jerking. I find it rather hefty that are using that reddit-playground as soapbox to villainise your WP colleagues, and to encourage others, to "vandalize" WP (Victor's justice for Wikipedia, in 3 easy steps) To speak about an amicable behave with that in mind, is absurd. You better work on your attitude pal! 194.54.80.109 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you unregistered user, for your commentary. I've not been active in the Reddit community until recently, since after I've been called out on my supposedly "anti-Nazi" attitudes, with the coordinators warned to "look out for this type of behavour", because it was not appropriate on "en Wiki". This has left me deeply disturbed and wondering if the earth was indeed flat and / or Wikipedia was stuck in 1950s West Germany somehow.


 * My original message to SV was worded rather gently, but, yes, I do wonder why editors object to removal of neo-Nazi publications, going back years and years. I think my user page shows rather bluntly that the Wikipedia indeed has a problem of "Nazi fancruft" (and I was not the first to use this term; I did not know it existed). What's been frustrating is the constant opposition and lack of cooperation specifically from certain MilHist coordinators; instead they call me names, denigrate my contributions, falsely accuse me of vandalism and issue threats on my Talk page. That is why I raised this topic with Sturmvogel. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong K.e., I'm all for it to get ride of some shenanigans in the articles, but don't pay it back in their own coin. It's like mud wrestling with a pig. Involving others from r/SWS only makes the situation worse. Stick to your wall of shame and don't let yourself be dragged down into the circle jerking meta. Sorry to interrupt and being off-topic 194.54.80.109 (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, being a "Hard-line Anti-Nazi"(TM) is hard work. One needs mental relief sometimes :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know, really. I haven't been really involved in German biographies except as a reviewer, and I think that a lot of the differences between you and MisterBee are really more of style than of substance. You seem to prefer a very stripped down style and he likes a more elaborate style that involves more detail and explanations. I tend to prefer his version as that's probably closer to my own style and I have a vague memory that in one article that you two disagreed over that I looked over when all this started, that I thought that you'd stripped out some valuable material. Not essential material, mind you, but worth retaining.
 * As you well know, that last comment that you quoted is my own, based on my experience in trying to keep material sourced to Antonio Munoz in an article. It was rejected because he was supposed to be pro-Nazi and self-published a lot of his material. He'd published a book with Paladin Press before forming his own company, so he counts as a recognized scholar, IMO, and I worked with him on some stuff and know that he's not a Nazi sympathizer. Anybody who publishes extensive material on the various massacres committed by German forces in Poland and the East can't be a pro-Nazi. But none of that mattered because some academic characterized him as such in a book and that overruled his actual publications.
 * I don't have any issues with removing NPOV material from articles that are sourced to people like Kurowski, but even he has some valuable material in his books as stuff that's strictly factual like organizational data or movements, etc., is unlikely to be tainted. His unit histories are actually fairly propaganda free, IIRC, unlike the biographies, but you need to be sure that the material used is genuinely non-RS or non-NPOV. Self-publishing a book is a big strike against, but you have to be sure that he hasn't published elsewhere with a reputable publisher. And each author/book needs to be judged on its own merit; you simply can't say that everything published by an particular publisher is non-RS, even Munin Verlag. So I guess that I should say that you need to watch for throwing out the baby with the bathwater as I believe that NPOV issues are more important than RS ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence our philosophical differences; I'm of the view expressed in the April discussion that "Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty". I've handled a book by Kurowski on the Afrika Korps -- it had no footnotes / endnotes, 1/2 page of references (I recall seeing The Rommel Papers), and plenty of dialog. If Kurowski (or another neo-Nazi author) is the only one who has covered an intricate detail, perhaps it's not worth including in Wikipedia? If the event / personality were important, would not have RS covered them?


 * It was painfully obvious to me that Franz Kurowski was not RS just by reading the Otto Kittel article, before I even looked into Kurowski and before I found out about the world of Landser-pulp literature. Yet it took creating an exhaustive article on Kurowski to show his works for what they are, but still some people were not convinced, with Peacemaker calling it an "attack piece". Sure, if it's an attack piece, please provide sources that praise his historical accuracy and authenticity. But none were provided; instead, Peacemaker took an easy way out by painting me as as "campaigner" engaged in a "crusade". This type of smearing and below-the-belt blows really leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, and having second thoughts about engaging with the project as whole.


 * As an aside, I do not call anyone "Nazi" -- it's a loaded term. Similarly, I would suggest that calling someone a "die-hard anti-Nazi" is equally loaded. In the "Awards" thread, I was also concerned about the distinctions being made between "en WP" and "de WP" as if rules of WP:RS, NPOV and quite frankly good taste were different between wikis. It created a perception for me of "don't step on my turf, you with your hard line anti-Nazi attitude", and has left me disturbed and questioning the integrity of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that if Kurowski's the only source for an intricate detail, I might keep it in or might not. It all depends on how important I feel that detail is. And everyone's going to draw that line differently.
 * To restate the obvious, Wiki's like anything else created by a group of humans, but you seem to spend a fair amount of time mocking the prose in existing articles, or complaining about missing articles that you feel are important and this does no one any good. Perhaps that's how you're venting your frustrations at the slow rate of progress or obstructionist editors, but it's not helping things and it alienates editors who otherwise might have sympathy for you and your efforts. You have extensive lists of crappy or NPOV prose on your talk page; how much time would have been required to fix all those compared to copying them over? God knows that there are many, many articles that have issues with NPOV, peacock phrases, and simple bad writing, but it's a far better thing to fix all those than chortle and point fingers at examples. (I trust that you don't need me to trot out the Teddy Roosevelt quotation about it's far easier to criticize than to do.) And using phrases like "totemic value" is just plain wrong to those of us who believe in giving ranks and unit names in the original language. If you'd care to look over French destroyer Léopard, you'll find that the article is littered with the French names for ranks and units (and their English equivalents); is that fancruft or "totemic value" by your definition? Even though it's a French ship? Maybe that's simply unneeded and redundant info in your estimation, but I believe that it has some value. And that's one of the things that I mentioned earlier about differences in style. Perhaps instead of deleting all those things wholesale, you might limit them to one use with the full term in German and then use the English equivalent or an abbreviation for the subsequent uses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a matter of style; my biggest concern is the sourcing in the articles in question and the WP:Own atmosphere. The major difference being that I don’t use sources, which have been described by editor ADA - DAP as neo-Nazi, in the articles I work on, nor do I defend their continued inclusion when other contributors point out that these works are problematic. Similarly, if I became aware that a source was perceived as neo-Nazi, my first reaction would be: “Wow, I did not know that. Let’s fix it”. I would not demand an RfC and “consensus”. In other examples, I don’t push for a work by a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi to stay in an article (this was before I knew about WP:Further, so I finally removed these books earlier this week; I hope it sticks). Nor would I dismiss concerns over a hagiography by a neo-Nazi Patrick Agte, with "removal of sources does not help”. I don't refer to anyone using the established AfD processes as “effectively vandalising WP with [their] deletionist zeal”. Frankly, I was relieved when MrB retired because I knew I would no longer be on the receiving end of their false “vandalism” labels, applied in violation of policy BTW. Nor do I describe anyone’s concerns as a “campaign” or a “crusade”, and issue orders to “take it to MilHist” because editors there “have a clue about such things”.

Good point on my user page -- 95% of this stuff has already been fixed, either by me or by other contributors. I don’t just complain, I do the work too :-). The problematic language one sees is the “before” version; the “after” version is provided in the linked diff. And that’s probably .1% or less of what has already been fixed; the material is too vast to include even a small fraction. These are just the more striking examples of dubious / POV / erroneous / atrociously sourced material that I’ve encountered. On the content creation side, I expanded the HIAG (post-war Waffen-SS lobby group) article, from a stub to GA status, and created several new articles, including Rommel myth, Waffen-SS in popular culture, and The Myth of the Eastern Front, for which I got several awards and kudos.

Where you correctly perceive some frustration is the areas where progress (IMO) has stalled or is being actively opposed, especially in the GA and A-class articles. Many of these articles use problematic sources and non-encyclopedic prose, yet my improvements are blocked on the ground that these articles have been "promoted by consensus". In another example, the Wehrmachtbericht section is quite large due to the amount of effort that was involved. To illustrate the process, I did the following, starting soon from the time I joined the project (Nov 2015):
 * 1) rewrote and expanded the Wehrmachtbericht article;
 * 2) attempted to engage editors on related talk pages (which was ignored);
 * 3) initiated removal discussions on three pages including Manstein, Rommel and Bach-Zalewski;
 * 4) observed the resulting blowout;
 * 5) conducted a search for sources as to whether it was a military commendation as alleged (could not find any)
 * 6) initiated a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, which may have helped sway one editor’s opinion, and
 * 7) am now finally able to proceed with removal of these OKW press releases (aka “historic testimony”).

So yes, I save the best examples of the transcripts onto my Talk page as I remove them from articles, and I've even turned one into a haiku :-).

To sum this up, none of this dismissive and borderline abusive behaviour that I outlined on the thread has come from outside of the MilHist coordinators' circle. Since you are the lead coordinator, I suggest that it may be a good idea to raise these issues with other coordinators, as I believe they impact the project overall. The perception is that MilHist "has its own rules for what’s encyclopedic” and engages in WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS behaviours. It may be the wrong perception, but as a participant of the project that is the impression I am getting, especially after the Hard Line Anti-Nazi(TM) thread. I don’t believe I’m an outlier; I’m just more involved in WWII topics to observe this day to day. Going forward, I would like to see a more positive and a more inclusive atmosphere, and not “us” vs “the outsiders”(?), if possible.
 * I think that there is some truth to what you're saying, but I'm going to need some time to examine all these recent interactions. Unfortunately, I'm starting my vacation tomorrow and won't be fully online for a week or so. Hopefully, I'll find time to look over a few of these each day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion may be of interest: Talk:Ludwig Kübler. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Another revert, along the same lines: Talk:Hans Hanke. The above one resulted in WP:3O. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd like to follow up on this discussion and see if you have any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, anything? On the thread above, Peacemaker appears to insinuate that I have multiple accounts ("...as a relative virtual-SPA newcomer with no known military biography FAs or even GAs (to my knowledge, and with this account)"). How would you handle this situation, if you were me? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Enquiry
Greetings Sturmvogel 66:

I ran across an article entitled "Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign" which is characterized in its Talk page as weak and needing expansion/improvement.

I would probably be able to provide some improvement along the lines suggested by "MooperVeltresleex's Checklist." Actually, I would probably find it rather amusing to describe the "Background- Geography" of this campaign particularly. So just to have discussed this with someone, and that someone seemingly indisputably someone in the know about many things Wiki related, I might try improving this article along the lines mentioned above by MooperVeltresleex. Of course I would do so tentatively so as not to make a big mess out of it. I know how to use the "preview" option when editing a page so that is a help. I know very little about how to mark up a text so it will appear a certain way so I just go with how I've seen others do it. Really the safest thing.

So I shall peruse the article, and see what I might find in my library to include. Now just to be sure, any book that is published by a mainstream publisher would be accepted reference. Is that correct? The kind of books I buy are published by houses such as "The University of Chicago Press," "Yale University Press", "Penguin" and the like. All mainstream stuff really. Make sure that all facts are referenced of course.

So. . . I've been a military history buff for a good time. Perhaps if I added my name to the "Military history WikiProject!" membership list I might receive a newsletter or the like, make acquaintances with like minded people. Best Regards, TDurden1937 TDurden1937 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)TDurden1937
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that checklist; can you give me a link? I don't see any problems with your editing the Gilbert and Marshall Island campaign; you have just as much standing to edit as any other person. What I'd suggest is find other, highly-rated, preferably WP:Good Article or better quality, articles of a similar nature and see how they're put together. That's how I learned; by copying the format of other articles and seeing what they covered and left out. Please do add your name to the membership list; we send out a monthly newsletter covering news regarding the project. You might see links to previous issues on this talk page, but I'm sure that are ones on the main project page. I'll be on vacation this next week or so, but feel free to ask questions. Just don't expect prompt answers!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ACh-30Bdieselengine.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ACh-30Bdieselengine.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/August 17, 2016
Working on this one now, feel free to hop in. Btw I've had a little drama in my life lately ... a difficult surgery. I mentioned it on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
This is just a reminder that WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge kicks off today, with the first subject being Bristol. Please remember to post entries under your name at WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge/Bristol. You are receiving this message because you are listed as a participant in the challenge.

Happy editing! --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The first leg is Bristol. Names are to be added at the bottom of the Bristol page and articles listed. Please also make sure that you add entries you improve/start to the main list on the main page. There will be £10 to win each day for the most points accumulated and then the winner of the county crowned after three days. The overall winner will be decided from the points accumulated from each county round. If you're not interested in winning anything and want to contribute anything you want from the West Country this is fine too though. Best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

HMS Fortune (H70)
Hello I'm translating in Italian the page, but I received a suggest that the HMS Fortune wasn't at Mers-el-Kebir. There you write participated in the attack on Mers-el-Kébir, but in 2.1 Force H, 1940–41 you didn't mention the operation Catapult, also in some reference HMS Fortune isn't listed in the order of battle of Mers-el-Kébir, can you help me? --Demostene119 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct, I meant the Battle of Dakar rather than Mers-el Kebir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 10:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force
As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

HMS Crescent (1931)
Hello

I translated one of your articles (HMS Crescent (1931)) to pl.wiki. During GA review one of users asked me About this part: ''Struck forward of the bridge by the cruiser's bow, Fraser was cut in half and sank immediately. All but 45 of the ship's crew were rescued by Restigouche and other nearby ships. ''. What happened with soldiers that (maybe/probably) were refugees and present on ship. Do you have any information about them? Or this destroyer didn't have any of them on board? PMG (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The warships at St. Jean-de-Luz do not appear to have embarked any refugees or troops. Thanks for your translations!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for info. And than for text that I have chance to translate :) PMG (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll update that main list once the West Country challenge is complete though so don't worry about adding your entries fro the contest to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates on ship articles
Can I pick your brains as you know a lot more about ship articles (HMS XXX in particular) than I do. "Coordinates needed" has been added to HMS Somerset (1748) - presumably for the site of the wreck, but is this normal or needed?&mdash; Rod talk 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I be really cheeky & say it also has several "ciatation needed" tags on it & I'm unfamiliar with RS in this area. Pushing it even further HMS Bridgewater (L01) has a ref improve banner as well. I'm just getting back to the Somerset cleanup list after the West Country Challenge.&mdash; Rod talk 20:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coordinates for museum ships and shipwrecks are normal. The ref-needed tag for Bridgewater is ridiculous; it's fully cited, but its career needs filling out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see HMS Bridgewater (L01) has already been fixed by User:The ed17. For the Somerset I've got to Cape Cod National Seashore but that is quite a large area. How do I get a more specific location to add the coords?&mdash; Rod talk 06:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with sailing shipwrecks, but I'd probably try the references listed in the article or maybe the webpage wrecksite.eu which might have it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the references are specific. On wrecksite it is this entry however only subscribers can see lat & long - we don't know any members do we?&mdash; Rod talk 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who, me? A talk page stalker? Never. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

coordinator MIA
Hi Sturm, sorry to be MIA for so long. It's been a hectic summer: new job and the culmination of a 3 year family crisis. The crisis seems resolved, and I think the job will work out okay, so I'll get back to my usual slug of reviewing within a couple of weeks. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No sweat, I've has issues of my own this year as well. Glad to see your return.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

screenreaders
Elucidate! Do the screen readers, by definition, not read what is on the screen. If so your argument is bogus!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, WP:PSEUDOHEAD. They don't know how to interpret the semicolon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Operation Paravane
Hi, As a quick reminder, will you be able to follow up on the Operation Paravane GAN? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've decided to go straight to ACR with this one. I'd be grateful for any comments you might have at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Paravane. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:835cmPLKvz22.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:835cmPLKvz22.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/October 9, 2016
Hi Sturm, here's another one of your FAC nominations at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR: Joachim Helbig
Hi, since you participated in the review of the article Joachim Helbig, I'm letting you know about the community reassessment that I initiated.

The discussion is at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary
Hello, your edit here refers. Bibliography is generally for books written by the subject of an article in the same way that 'filmography' relates to movies appeared in and 'discography' to records made. Please see WP:FURTHER (within MOS:LAYOUT), WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY and MOS:FOOTERS (Works and publications) for more information. Thank you. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that we're both wrong because the proper title for the section is "References" as they're used by all of the cites. That said, Bibliography is widely used instead, despite of the MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A Death Star for you!

 * Thank you, kindly, gentlebeing!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon
Aiming for 2000 articles. Hope to see you contributing soon!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

HMS Collingwood (1908)
Just giving you a heads-up on this one ... Brian hasn't officially scheduled it yet, but it's in one of his sandbox pages as the TFA on 8 November. The lead was below the minimum characters for TFA, so I expanded it a little in my main sandbox. Hopefully this will turn into something official soon. (I'm mentioning it now because I like to give everyone at least 2 weeks notice when possible). - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi
I understand the surprise (and the deception) that took you when you read my proposal to rectify the text describing the layout of the flight decks of aircraft carrier Akagi (it would also the same for Kaga). On the article, it is mentioned for the first time on 21 January 2008 (at 22:13) under the pen name of the contributor Orpy15. :

"As completed, the ship had two hangar decks with a capacity of 61 aircraft. The hangars opened onto two superimposed flying off decks at the bow.". No doubt he was inspired by what all we read about it in many publications. If the justification then provided ("In theory, this permitted aircraft to take off directly from the hangars," is accurate it is only true for the lower deck. A similar arrangement was existing on the British aircraft carriers Furious, Glorious and Courageous.

Because it is a very common mistake (not only on the "net" but also in the "paper" works) to believe that the intermediate platform (middle) was a flying off deck. Indeed it does not correspond to reality. Just carefully observe the pictures and drawings to find that this hypothesis is unrealistic.

Besides a (legitimate) doubt is discussed later:

"The utility of her middle flight deck was questionable as it was so short that only some lightly loaded aircraft could use it …" … and the reasons for that are obvious: reduced length of the platform (60ft), and not any communication with the upper hangar (separated from the platform by the forward lift) - which prohibits any direct flight of a plane from this hangar - and the presence of the bridge and two turrets 8in.

If we assuming that use this platform as a flying off deck was needed, it would have required to lift the plane, from the upper flight deck (get it with a crane) or from the deck of lower flying off deck (hoist with a crane); which removes the whole point of a flying off deck located at the hangar level. Except, in a pinch, if the lower flying off was unavailable or inaccessible (as result of a battle damage?). But with the price of a complicated acrobatics, which does not seem like a good backup.

No. In conclusion, the purpose of this platform is quite obvious: it is a simple extension of the lower hangar roof.

--Fondudaviation (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but what value was there to extending the roof that was worth the extra weight and expense? And don't you think that the lift could stop directly at its level? At any rate, that's not what the sources say and you've gone off into original research.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason (for the possibility of lift at its level) is simple: between the elevator and the forward platform, there is the navigation bridge, which is not retractable and therefore constitutes an insurmountable obstacle between the hangar and the flight deck.


 * Moreover, to my knowledge, there is no photo showing aircraft on this platform.


 * --Fondudaviation (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, now find a printed source that says as much and you make that change, otherwise it's OR, no matter how correct you are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Some answers to your questions:
 * It is true that the overwhelming majority of websites and books speak of "three flight decks" for the first configuration of Akagi / Kaga … Only some speak of "three fly decks, including two take-off D."
 * The mistake about the "triple-decker" Akagi and Kaga probably comes from poisoning (epidemic?) by a wrong source reproduced without checking their validity.
 * Clearly there often is a copy / paste / paraphrased American publications of 1950-60.
 * But this is not a reason to consider it as true.
 * We observe in fact that wikipedia Japanese cautiously some doubts:
 * ([Https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B5%A4%E5%9F%8E_(%E7%A9%BA%E6%AF%8D) JapWikiAkagi])
 * 初期 の 艦 形
 * […].
 * 建造 当初 の 赤城 の 飛行 甲板 は イ ギ リ ス 海軍 空 母 フ ュ ー リ ア ス の 第二 次 改装 を 参考 に し て 三段式 で あ っ た (フ ュ ー リ ア ス は 二段). た だ し, 中段 に は 20cm 連 装 砲 2 基 と 艦橋 が あ り, 飛行甲板 と し て は 使用 さ れ な か っ た. し か も 下 段 甲板 も ほ ぼ 使 わ れ て い な い と い う 有 様 だ っ た. 着艦 と 大型機 の 発 艦 は 最 上 段 の 発 着 甲板 で 行 い, 中部 格納 庫 (赤城 は 格納 庫 も 三段式) か ら 伸 び た 下 段 飛行 甲板 は 小型機 の 発 艦 に 使用 さ れ た. 建造 中 は ど の 甲板 を 「上 甲板」 と 解 釈 す る か で 議論 が あ っ た.
 * Similarly (for paper sources) the Japanese text Kyodo Shuppan-sha, Tokyo (Macdonald & Co. took over for his edition of NAVIES OF THE SECOND WW in English) reports still cautiously: "… a single three flight deck arrangement although the center deck was never used as a take-off platform. "
 * It is certain (and careful observation of pictures and diagrams can only confirm) that the middle platform (too short – 15 meters - without opening / connection to the air-shed) can not be practically used as a take off runway… especially without catapult.
 * Analysis:
 * Does exist it only:
 * • one photograph showing a plane on that deck?
 * • one photo showing tire marks on the planks of the deck?
 * • one brand characteristic of a flight deck (axial line, bridge after smoke to mark the wind…) in the pictures?
 * • one photo showing a crane capable of hoisting or install an airplane on this intermediate bridge?
 * On the contrary:
 * • visible marks on the bridge are trademarks deposit converging on the bridge
 * • the bridge is inaccessible from the hangar, which is evident in the pictures (or prints) showing the Akagi and the Kaga in front with their navigation bridge prohibiting any connection
 * • the short length of the bridge (can not accommodate in any event only a very limited number of aircraft, and installing aircraft is impossible without crane) interest as flight deck is zero: it would have had to install these in harbour; and after their takeoff, they would not have been implemented until the other two decks
 * • because of their breath blast, the use of 203mm cannons is incompatible with the use of wood and canvas biplane
 * We find indeed no trace of the use of aircraft (biplanes) on the mid deck of Kaga and Akagi.
 * In fact the real (and alone) utility of this medium platform was to hold the role of "visors" caps (as these protecting the pseudo-turrets unclosed on destroyers - British in particular)- and thus protect the parked (or current launched) aircraft fly off the lower deck of breath blast of 203mm cannons, located on either side of the navigation bridge on the middle platform.
 * See also here: http://www.scientific-mhd.eu/maquettisme/produits/detail-articles-43220-MCPL.htm
 * Or so: http://www.maquetland.com/article-1167-japon-ijn-les-porte-avions-du-soleil-levant-1941-1945
 * And especially: [img]http://www.maquetland.com/v2/images_articles/akagi%20kaga (1).jpg [/img]
 * Finally, I wonder if (with a little joke) instead of seeking evidence of the lack of median flight deck, it should not, however, quote a reliable source demonstrating the practical (and use real) of the third deck…


 * Regards,--Fondudaviation (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the middle deck was most likely to protect the aircraft on the lower flight deck from the blast effects of the guns on the middle deck. However, you need to find some published reliable source that says as much before you can add that fact to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikicup Report
I cannot write a Signpost report about myself. If the Wikicup is meant to be in the Signpost - which it hasn't been for the last two rounds due to the lack of newsletter - the newsletter about the end needs to come out no later than November 15, and, really, if we're being at all practical, by November 7. Hope this isn't rude, just, y'know, better to say when things need to happen by instead of surprising. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Producing some great articles! Can I interest you in contributing to the new WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge? Will start a 1000 Challenge for Texas if there is the interest. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review request
Hello. Is there any chance you would be interested in reviewing Liliuokalani for GA status (like now)? I haven't nominated it yet since I don't want to bog it down in the GA review waiting process unless I can secure someone to review it. I am looking for an attentive and quick (but not sloppy) review that can struck up all the problems. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I'm asking a few other regular GA reviewer as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

USS Arizona page edits
Since you obviously "own" the page USS Arizona (BB-39), I will let you take the responsibility to make the necessary changes. My point was that the sentence, "The explosion killed 1,177 of the 1,512 crewmen on board at the time...," needs clarification. The figure of 1,177 dead on the Arizona is indeed the accepted figure, but do we know that the explosion killed all 1,177? Isn't it possible that any of the other three bombs that hit the ship could have killed even one? My other edits were secondary to the attempt to clarify this issue. A few simple editorial corrections could remove vagueness and avoid any misrepresentation of facts, which I assume is the point of allowing user edits, at least in part. Just because the page was vetted by multiple editors during the Featured Article Candidacy process doesn't make it perfect. If self-appointed primary page editors suppress edits to protect their own egos, then the entire enterprise is diminished as a result. I respectfully ask that you please take your responsibility more seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.29.225 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll never know whether any of the other bombs killed anyone or not. But that's not how I read your changes. And your phrasing of "naval officers and crewmen and Marines" is simply crappy English and is unnecessarily precise. You do yourself no favors by resorting to name-calling before asking what problems I had with your changes.
 * However, you do make a good point that the magazine explosion most likely wasn't responsible for all the deaths, and I'll rephrase to clarify that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was clear in my initial comments regarding the changes, if you had bothered to read them carefully in the first place. Also, I did not resort to name-calling, but simply responded forcefully to your rude, dismissive attitude.
 * Nevertheless, thanks for sort-of correcting the paragraph. Still, "the bombs and subsequent explosion" may not account for all the deaths. There were many factors that contributed to the casualties, including the subsequent fire and flooding due to the ship sinking. Now that the casualty figures have been moved to the end of the paragraph as I had proposed, perhaps you could just say, "1,177 of the 1,512 crewmen on board at the time were killed, over half of the lives lost during the attack." I will defer to your better judgment. Cheers. 71.171.28.95 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC), updated: 71.171.29.187 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, if you don't want to start a sentence with a numeral, you could say, "Of the 1,512 crewmen on board at the time, 1,177 were killed, approximately half of the lives lost during the attack." Please note that, while the statistic regarding the overall number of deaths in the Pearl Harbor attack seems to vary, the most commonly cited figure is 2,403 (per the Wikipedia article on the Attack on Pearl Harbor); the 1,177 killed on the Arizona accounts for slightly less than half of this total. I would therefore suggest replacing the word "over" with "approximately." 71.171.29.187 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello...
It's me, Romanian-and-proud. Look, I...I had enough. I realized that editing as an IP will never truly get me anywhere. I love Wikipedia, I truly do, and I've been loving it for years, and I regret unspeakably the way I acted before. But I'm not the sock of someone else! I swear to God I am not! Yet I was labelled as such, and I feel hopeless now...I wish to have my block commuted to 6 months instead of indefinite. I wish few things more than being given a second chance to bring my contribution. And yes, I will wait the 6 months out this time, I vow to do so. Please..Help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.73.171 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Inviting you to the Tanks WikiProject!
Hello User:Sturmvogel 66, you are hereby invited to a newbie wikiproject: WikiProject Tanks! We are a group of Wikipedians who help improve tank articles (i.e., generally). Check us out at our main page! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:USS Albany (1846)/GA1
Sturmvogel 66, I thought you might not have seen that the nominator has responded to your review, and seems to be ready for you to check what she's done. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Collect your prize
Hi, please carefully read the instructions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for collecting your prize. I will need you to send me an email, your wiki name, what I owe you and your preference for currency in dollars or pounds/country of residence.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've sent you the reward, you just need to claim it and confirm you've got it on the destubathon talk page, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week [24 December 2016]
User:Gbawden submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Sturmvogel 66 to be Editor of the Week for destubbing a number of ship articles during Africa Destubbathon during Oct and Nov 2016 and continuing to take a number of them to GA status. I believe he deserves a pat on the back for that

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're very kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! – Corinne (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, kind lady.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


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

Red olta 📱 Cont ribs 00:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And for you as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Military Historian of the Year

 * Thanks, Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy 2017!
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rosie, and to you as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sturmvogel 66!


Happy New Year! Sturmvogel 66, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! And to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Year in Review

 * Wow, thank you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 16 GAN reviews

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Courageous-class aircraft carrier scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Courageous-class aircraft carrier article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 February 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/February 5, 2017. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim, I've already made a few tweaks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "large light cruisers"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wasserman
I know it was only a stub, and years ago, but do you recall why you labelled the Wasserman radar as a height finder? It appears to be a pretty bog-standard Freya with a fancy antenna. A height-finder is a radar dedicated to that task, this does not appear to be that at all. For instance, CH could find the height, but it was not a height-finding radar. 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wassermann and Mammut were complementary radars, Wassermann was better at height finding while Mammut was better at bearing. That said, I think that Wassermann was more than just a height finder, so I've changed the classification to an early-warning radar. Thanks for reminding me of this article; it's been so long that I'd almost forgotten about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Action of 19 August 1916
Greetings 66, I saw "No need to make things harder for our visually impaired readers" and wondered what difference the refbegin templates make? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They shrink the size of the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's what causes it. Keith-264 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to I-class destroyer
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the I-class destroyer article, with the comment

"Nope, single letters get single quote marks, everything else gets double."

I just checked the appropriate section of the Manual of Style (MOS:QUOTEMARKS), and I did not find any mention regarding single letters. Source, please? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A copyeditor friend, so it doesn't look to be codified in the MOS as such. But since I'm not using it for an actual quote, I think it falls under the example of plant species, etc. I was wondering, though, about why you changed the hyphen in anti-E boat to an emdash?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The em dash should have have been an en dash, per MOS:NDASH, since "E boat" is a compound term.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I need help...
Greetings. There is a reason I keep avoiding the block. Some while ago, my account was labelled as a sock of some other user named Iaaasi, or something like that, by a user that has Silver Barnstar. I don't think I have to explain how hopeless my plight is: who can argue with Mister Silver Barnstar? I swear to God though, I am not a sock of that user. I kept editing afterwards because I felt hopeless, anytime I paused to consider stopping the edits I remembered that I was already labelled a sock by a high-ranking user, so I thought "What's the point?". However, I really do not want to remain an elusive IP forever, and make my edits in fear. I really do wish to legally return, but what hopes do I have with that label there? Look, I swear and I mean it this time: If that label is removed, I will stop editing for 6 months right away. It worths the wait if the alternative is to keep hiding like a rat. Can you please help me?... 86.123.126.168 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Canon de 155 GPF
I've been (slowly) translating French documents on the GPF and had thought to edit the existing GPF article. The present article may as well be entitled the GPF in US service. There's nothing about the GPF-T (Toussant), 164.7mm and 194mm variants of the GPF. My question is whether I'll just get edits reverted if I start using French documents? And why not get rid of the existing 194mm GPF article (which is total rubbish) and fold it into the GPF article. Charlie Landships (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, French-language stuff is fine, although be careful with primary documents like manuals, etc. See WP:Primary. I don't have a problem merging the two, but you'd best put up a notice, as per WP:Merge in case anyone else does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks, Rupert.

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kursk air offensive
How do you suggest we proceed? I agree the evidence is weak in the sense that few air scholars discuss this in relation to Kursk, but is one sufficient for it to be mentioned? I have not yet looked too far and wide, I might be able to find more that supports Muller. Perhaps a sentence to say there was a general effort to support land ops this way; Citadel included. Any detail could be taken to a separate article. Dapi89 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the strategic bombings on the Eastern Front need their own article, but until a stronger direct link between them and Zitadelle can be established, we don't mention them in the Battle of Kursk article. But we do need to mention the railyard and leaflet bombings in June. I'd be very interested to see what the newly translated soon-to-be-released Volume VIII of Germany and the Second World War has to say about the whole thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volume 7 I'm sure talks about it. Also Williamson Murray (Strategy for Defeat) links the bombing with Citadel. He goes further, and says the OKL were pushing it as an alternative to Citadel. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volume 7 doesn't say shit about it; I trawled through it last night looking for info. I'll check out Murray; I think I have a copy on my hard drive somewhere. Doesn't surprise me that OKL pushed it as an alternative to Zitadelle; it goes right to your point about the LW wanting to revert to its own doctrine and decouple itself from the Heer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it! But it says that OKW staff argued to cancel the offensive in favor of building a reserve in Germany; nothing about OKL. Page 157 of the Airpower Research Institute edition. Annoyingly, he doesn't say squat about the strategic bombing campaign in the East.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not correct! See volume 7 here. Also see Murray here. I'm surprised I have been able to find these online. Dapi89 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about in Murray? Searching Kursk in the link you provided leads right to the sentence that I was referring to about OKW, not OKL. 2nd paragraph. As for Vol. 7, I was referring to a direct link to Zitadelle; it does give good background info on the strategic bombing campaign that they tried to mount.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look at page 245. He doesn't do things chronologically. War in the East, The Mediterranean, and over Britain. Next page, 246. It argues, or more accurately CAS Korten & OKL wanted, to use air rather than land power to achieve results because they foresaw Citadel would not be "decisive". See the following page also. Dapi89 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, so much for relying on the damn index. So you're right; two parallel things, not linked together. What exactly does Muller say when he links them together? Does he source it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They are linked, even if Murray shows that the Luftwaffe was trying to supplant Citadel with bombing. That is enough to warrant a mention in my opinion.
 * In any event; to Muller. He has reviewed the Oleg work and has drawn the conclusion that he was clearly arguing: The Heer requested the Luftwaffe conduct strategic attacks against Soviet tank production in order to prepare for Zitadelle (I agree for what its worth). Muller argues that the bombing campaign was asked for at the beginning of 1943, if not before. He does not disassociate it from Citadel and he argues that the offensive was at the behest of the army and reliant on the information provided by it. He then goes through the intelligence issues; the use of high ranking Soviet prisoners for information, the disharmony in the OKL etc. Muller does tackle the origin of the offensive, the sources to which he rightly says are limited, or fragmented. In his view their was a general encompassing strategy to attack the Soviet war effort 'at source'. He suggests that had Citadel not intervened (the offensive itself not the preparatory phase) the main operations would have remained against industry, rather than CAS, and probably would have been much more wide ranging. As it was, he is clear that the army was extremely interested in having these targets destroyed over the course of the summer. He doesn't explicitly say this was because of Citadel, but the inference is there. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Germanicus
You seem to have a lot of experience with Good Artilces, so I was hoping that you would be able to review Germanicus at GAN. I understand if you don't want to do it - it is time consuming. Psychotic  Spartan  123  09:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Vacancy
How about becoming an admin? There's a 200% pay rise in it! Seriously, you have what it takes to become an admin. Am aware of your feelings that you don't want to get involved in the drama and prefer to concentrate on content work. I had similar misgivings myself, particularly re the content work. You do not have to get involved if you don't want to, but having the extra tools is useful. I'd be happy to nominate you, and am confident you'll pass a RFA. Think about it, no rush to decide. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anybody else hearing Billy Preston in the back of their head? Nothing plus Nothing makes Nothing?  Anmccaff (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the consideration, but I just know that I'd get sucked into dealing with obstreperous editors and I don't need the extra aggro.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WMDC Women's Destubathon Contest
Hi Sturmvogel, Building on some emails we've shared, I wanted to follow-up with you regarding the WMDC Women's Destubathon Contest. Can you please clarify contest dates, and if you'll be creating a contest page soon? WikiProject Women in Red would like to support the contest (if contest rules allow for new article creation, e.g. from stub to start class), but as we're fast approaching April, we have to firm up our calendar's events in the next day or two. I'd be glad to handle contest promotion, e.g. invites. Do you need me to do anything else? For quick reference, here are some links: P.S. While I'm attending Wikimedia Conference (Berlin; March 27-April 5), I'll have limited availability. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Contests
 * I've been bogged down in real life and I think that we should shift the contest to 1-31 May which will give me more time to create the necessary pages. Apologies for not letting you know earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. That'll work just fine. And thanks for posting the info at Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

second opinion
SS Ampere and USS Mindoro have been nominated as GA. I'm concerned that they are fairly skimpy. Asked for a second opinion. may be that there is nothing of use in various sources, but you always seem to find material. auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check them out later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! I'm going to encourage him to rewrite those paragraphs that he's quoted. auntieruth (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll try and do Ampere later today. Ordinarily, I'd spend a lot of time getting the nominator to fix things himself, but it's so much quicker just to do them yourself... Especially when it's such a short article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

 * Thanks, Mike.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Centurion (1911)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Centurion (1911) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

 * Thank you, kind sir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Test
Greetings from Germany, Karsten Schulze (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks, Zawed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hi! How to know the number of Wikipedias an article appeared on? :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look over on the left sidebar, you'll see a section called Languages. That tells you how many foreign Wikipedias the article is in. Be advised that many articles have no equivalents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * HMS Centurion (1911)
 * added links pointing to Trebizond, Steamer, Aerial bombing and Decommissioned

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

HMS Barham sinking
In the article on HMS Barham, you write "The destroyer Hotspur rescued some 337 survivors, including Vice-Admiral Henry Pridham-Wippell and the pair who later died of their wounds, while the Australian destroyer Nizam reportedly rescued some 150 men." Who would this pair be? It sounds like the reader is supposed to know. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Due to the speed at which she sank, 862 officers and ratings were killed,[53][89] including two who died of their wounds after being rescued. The destroyer Hotspur rescued...". Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a feeler for info
Hey. You wouldn't know (or would you), or know who might know, whether or not anyone ever wrote a dissertation or book etc. that might have attempted some authoritative response to the question, "Did the Allies have sufficient shipping during WWII to dedicate several grain ships for famine relief for India? Many thanks in advance. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * :Lizze Collingham's excellent book The Taste of War discusses the Bengal Famine in a global context. She notes that it coincided with a global shipping crisis, and shortfalls in food supplies to the UK, but basically concludes that the British Government could have diverted at least some extra supplies to India. However, she also stresses that the famine was also caused by food not being moved from other areas of India where there were surpluses (also the fault, ultimately, of the British colonial government). Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your awesomeness is unquestioned and unparalleled! Thanks... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the most relevant section[].Also I would recommend the brilliant Forgotten Armies by Chris Bayly and Tim Harper which goes into the origins and effect of the famine in great detail. It's a masterpiece i.m.o. [] (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I already have Bayly/harper, tho I cited them sparingly. Maybe I should take another look. Thanks again! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that ya'll could answer Lingzhi's question, because I've never really done much reading on the Indian homefront in the 2nd World War and didn't have a clue about any suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah well that's what pagewatchers do Sturm ;) I haven't re-read my copy of forgotten armies for a few years but It has a whole, very detailed chapter devoted to the famine as I recall, and it is referred to in many other places in the book. It may be worth revisiting. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

, I'm looking at Collingham in both Amazon and googlebooks, and I can't seem to find where it makes the assertions you suggest. The criticism of not getting int'l food is impplied strongly, esp. when it argues that grain was sent quickly to the Middle east (p. 152 I think), but I don't see mention of the inter-provincial trade barriers blocking domestic supplies. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in there. In detail. See for instance pages 143, 145, 148, 150, 152 and 153. Various other accounts I've read also note that problems distributing food within India were a key element in the famine. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing

 * Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Centurion (1911)
The article HMS Centurion (1911) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Centurion (1911) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King George V-class battleship (1911)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King George V-class battleship (1911) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese aircraft carrier Taiyō
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japanese aircraft carrier Taiyō you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft camouflage GAN
Hi, not sure what has happened with this one, were you holding it for use in competition or something? I'm not in any special hurry, but it would be good to know what your plans are for the review. All the best and Happy Easter, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Sturmvogel. I'm just posting to let you know that List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Borodino-class battlecruiser FA
Hey Sturmvogel 66, I was wondering if you had any plans to go for an FAC on the Borodino-class battlecruiser. It seems like its improved a lot since it got failed six some years ago. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WMDC women's contest
Hi, do you have an update on the contest? Thank you. WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas --Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:SMS Meteor (1865)/GA1
Hey Sturm, we're closing in on a month and you haven't left any comments on the review yet. Can you take a look? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"
Hello Sturm, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested. EyeTruth (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Mutsu scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Japanese battleship Mutsu article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 31, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 31, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New Book
Aye Sturmvogel, long time no 'see'. Just came across a relatively new book and thought you might be interested: -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 416 pages.

[[USS Hawaii (CB-3)|USS ''Hawaii'' (CB-3)]]
Rewrite from scratch is (slowly, so slowly) in progress in my sandbox. Have discovered along the way that I added some material (post-FAC, but still 2009) to Alaska-class cruiser with the wrong sources, and now I can't find where I got the info from. Sigh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HMSAnne.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:HMSAnne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shtorm(ship).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shtorm(ship).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vikhr.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Vikhr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YakovlevYak-30.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:YakovlevYak-30.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: Your note IJN Hiryu
You reverted the Captain table I added with the note "work it into Text"

In my opinion while yes it may be useful to flesh out the text and add to the ship's biography that such and such a captain took over on such and such a date, the table is still a useful appendage at the end.

Similar tables are found in places like for the command history of US Civil War Armies and Corps, for elections of Politicians and successions of kings. Why would militarily significant warships not also have a table listing their commanding officers at the bottom?

The Japanese versions of the articles provide this information and so I was in the process of translating it and reformatting it to add to English. I'm curious why you don't find that information worthwhile so that I don't waste effort on a project that's going to get deleted.

-JustRadical 27 May 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justradical (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/June 26, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King George V-class battleship (1911)
The article King George V-class battleship (1911) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King George V-class battleship (1911) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

USS Omaha (CL-4)
I realize you are probably very busy, but since we've talked about this before, I'd appreciate you're opinion. I'd like to nominate the USS Omaha (CL-4) article for GA but would really like to have you once-over it for major problems before I do that. I know in the past you've been critical on some of my edits, for good reason, so that is why I'm asking this favor. I realize that we have different points of view on how much info should be in the infobox, but I also don't think I'm in violation of any rules, so unless I am I'd like to leave what I have in there in. I used your advice on the armament section. Anyway, if you can't, or won't, I understand, I'd just like an expert opinion before submitting it. Thanks.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He's been inactive since April, unfortunately. SpartaN (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can take a look! On a quick glance (can do more probably tomorrow):
 * I'm wondering if there is any more info on the inter-war period. DANFS seems to have a lot of detail that you could use?
 * Historyofwar.org isn't reliable, and Toppan probably isn't either.
 * I have a few sources that may help you, including Whitley's Cruisers of WWII and Osborne's Cruisers and Battle Cruisers; I'll look to see what's there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both of you, hope everything is okay. I would appreciate any advice very much. I will for sure check DANFS for any missed material, I have Terzibashitsch's Cruisers of the US Navy 1922-1962, and a couple of others that I added what I could from it. That's too bad about Historyofwar.org and Toppan, maybe I can find the same info referenced someplace else. I've tried to start collecting some books for my library, but some of them, like Friedman's, are pretty expensive. I won't be back on until Monday night, so don't be in too much of a hurry. I just thought that the Omaha-class cruisers would be a good place to "cut my teeth" on GAs. Thanks again for any help.Pennsy22 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've sent him a couple emails but have not received a response. If anyone does know what's going on, please let me know.
 * They're awfully expensive, I'm all too aware. :-/ Inter-library loan is your friend wherever possible. You might find this helpful as well! Whitley only had a few sentences on Omaha's service, which was disappointing but he had a lot of cruisers to cover, I suppose. I've added those as refs to the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've expanded the article a lot, DANFS added a lot to the ships history, correcting some mistakes, like the ship served in the Atlantic most of her career. I'm not sure if I added too much, I can trim it down some if needed, I tried to hit all of the major events. I'd like to add a gallery for pictures but I'd like opinions first, I'll add one or two more in to the article but I downloaded a bunch from Naval History and Heritage Command. Let me know what you think before I submit it, I don't want to waste anyone's time on my first submission. Thanks in advance. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Singora
Amusing that Singora thinks so highly of you and so lowly of me. Of course he doesn't know that you were one of the biggest contributors to the contests I've run. Singora refers to Wikipedia as "WikiCrappo" and generally talks about it and its editors in a malicious way, something which I'm sure you wouldn't approve of. He highly regards some "megapedians" though, and you're near the top of his list, I'm sure you're honoured ;-). Any developments with the DC women contest BTW? I'll be running the world women one in October I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IzmailConstruction.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:IzmailConstruction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Added to Borodino-class battlecruiser article so image wouldn't be lost.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)