User talk:The Land/Archive/Archive02

Check out the battleship page now. I have it pretty-well polished up until the World War II section, and that should be taken care of soon. I'd like to add a little more detail to the "decline" section as needed. Carajou 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the "cruiser" entry as well. Years ago I had read a lot about USS Constitution, and one of her acts was to conduct searches for British ships while under the command of William Bainbridge near the Brazilian coast. Accompanying her I believe was USS Essex, and Essex was ordered to keep a certain British ship bottled up in Bahia while Constitution went elsewhere. From what I read, the back-and-forth sailing done by Essex was called "cruising", which gave rise to "cruiser" as applied to a ship. But as I've said, it's been a long while (27 years) since I read it, so I could be wrong. Carajou 01:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

 * 8The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

MFI-17 Mushshak
pl elobrate your rating.What should be added more and how.E.g source about its manfacture puictures in other counrries and what else?.User talk:Yousaf465 "Thanks for the assit" from f-22 raptor wingman.User talk:Yousaf465

Page stats
Hi The Land. On your user page you say that Battleship was being read by 164,000 people a day. Where do you get that information? Is it just from the list of most popular pages, or it possible to get the daily read rate for more modest pages? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, HMS Incomparable, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-dreadnought battleship
I noticed someone added an image to this article today, and when I visited to check it out, the article seemed buried in images. I hadn't looked at it in a long time, but I knew it couldn't have passed FA with so much text sandwiched between images, so I counted them - and found that it had 18 images at FA, and now has 22. Ugh! Can you take a look? Maralia (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

List of battleships of France
Please review List of battleships of France--Toddy1 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruiser rewrite
Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I was getting a bit frustrated with the state of it, not least because I encounter SO MANY misconceptions about battlecruisers on interent messageboards, and my irritation with i twas holding up me working on the things I really care about, like dreadnought... ;-) The Land (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruiser
Are you trying to bring it up to FA all on your own? =)  the_ed 17  06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask if you need any help, btw, though I won't be back (in all likelihood) until Monday(?)  the_ed 17  06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So I lied; this will be the only edit I will have today (probably...I apoligize for being a wikiholic)!!!! But I will help with prose etc.--I know very little about battlecrusiers, so that is probably all that I can help with. Sorry!  the_ed 17  14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Review request - List of Peruvian Navy ships
Please could you review List of Peruvian Navy ships and put suggestions for improvement & style changes in the talk page. The reason for requesting this is that I want to improve the page, for one thing taking the list back to the mid-19th century (the Peruvian navy was an important regional navy from the 1850s to 1881).

I have two reasons for wanting to attempt this. (a) it is a comparatively small task, so I have got time for it. (b) The recent mention of Loa and the Victoria on the Ironclad_warship, which are not mentioned in Conways, and which King's 1880 book said were armoured gun vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackie fisher
Hi, I noticed you taking an interest on the chat page for Jackie fisher, and wondered whether you know anything about him. (like, seriously, it struck me from your comments that you may). The article already has a difference of view over his successive commands in the 'captain' section. Massie/Dreadnought lists a third order of commands. He says fisher went back to sea december 1876 commanding Pallas, then moved to a cruiser, then to two battleships, one of which was bellerophan, then Inflexible in jan 1881. That he commanded five ships in six years starting 1876 before returning to 'excellent' in portsmouth after severe illness. We list six commands in that period. One is 'Duke of Wellington', which its own article says was flagship of the admiral at Portsmouth at the time the JF article lists it with fisher commanding. Massie has him commanding Inflexible from jan 1881, when the article places him on duke of wellington. From the description of 'pallas' she would seem always a design failure, and perhaps a good ship to give to a new commander for some practice. Any ideas? Sandpiper (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well a study of the ships might reveal a sequence of captains, or where they were and what doing which may help confirm or eliminate some of the conflicting info. Dreadnought isn't really a bio of fisher, he's just one part. Havn't read any others specifically about him, but I am reasonably impressed by what is in dreadnought. He does emphasise people and their interactions, but I do notice sometimes wiki articles seem to me a bit short on character and background stuff about the people, whereas their bald doings are listed. In the case of the fisher article I found it quite long and informative, but actually having read much of what massie says, now feel it rather missed the point of explaining exactly what he did which was so impressive. I came at this from reading about churchill, and his bust up with fisher, thus wanting to know something of fishers side. So now I feel I shall have to track down castles of steel, to see what massie says about the two together. Sandpiper (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the command dates. When I get time I will try to check them off against massie and see if the two are consistent. On a slightly different tack, I gathered from your comments on 'fisher' talk that you have reservations about Massie. I just got hold of 'castles of steel' and was reading the sections about the dardanelles naval actions and jutland. Never been especially concerned about naval battles before 6 months ago.
 * Now, I gather from Massie there was considerable debate over the Jutland outcome. If I summarise Massie, I would say he said, the germans got in first claiming Jutland as a victory before Jellicoe came home or the admiralty knew what happened. As a result there was a public perception of a lost battle which has persistently lingered and been blamed on Jellicoe. My impression from Massie is that Beatty was responsible for a disproportionate number of the british losses, that he failed to follow Fisher's plan ie that battlecruisers were never supposed to engage within enemy range, stupidly allowed his fleet to be split, and failed to report what was happening (as he had been specifically ordered). Jellicoe was blamed for being overcautious, but again he exactly did follow Fishers plan, at all costs to maintain numerical supremacy of the british fleet and specifically the dreadnoughts, which he did as agreed with the admiralty. That leaves open the issue about whether it would have been better to have risked the fleet for the benefits of destroying the german one, or whether beatty was right to risk (and lose) his ships if that was necessary to draw out the germans. Anyhow, do you consider this is an accurate representation of current thinking?
 * re the Dardanelles, Massie struck me as somewhat more pro-churchill (though there is a good deal more background I have yet to read) than Carlyon writing in Gallipoli. Fisher was steadfastly against the Dardanelles campaign, but again as with Jutland, mostly because of issues of compromising the strength of the grand fleet. It struck me Massie came down on the side of Churchill being correct to press the naval campaign, which he was never permitted to do. He got the blame, but never got to apply his own strategy. Keys even attempted a last-minute resurrection of a naval attack, which he seems to have always and afterwards believed would work. Carlyon was quite dismissive of Keys, said he was the sort of person who should never be placed in overall command, though in reality but for a change of government, he would eventually have been first lord. The books didn't exactly say, but I begin to suspect Churchill did not even disagree with fisher about the need for troops. He just knew he wasn't going to get them. Anyhow, what are your reservations about Massie and therefore about his conclusions? Sandpiper (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Warrior
Did you have a ref to where massie discusses this? Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. I will investigate more. But as a first response, I would draw your attention to Image:HMS Warrior Armour.png. which shows the bulkhead construction as a sandwich of steel with timber inside. The caption also claims a similar composite construction for all the armour. Sandpiper (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I hoped to find was a detailed diagram of how the hull worked. Best I can find is that the central section of the ship was different to the stem and stern ends. The ends were simply a thin wrought iron skin. The centre was wrought iron, then teak planking 18 in thick, then 4.5 in of wrought iron plates. This extended through the ship as a bulkhead, so the core was a big armoured rectangular box with shaped ends tacked on. I noted a comment which I didn't understand when I read it, but which I think said one or other end had been removed when she was used as a barge, but they have now put it back on.


 * So it seems Massie was wrong about the oak, it was teak,  'but iron plates four and a half inches thick'  certainly were  'bolted to her [wooden] side' . Now, my remaining puzzle is how the outer skin was formed: the outside is smooth without obvious bulges in the middle, so somehow the thin section has to flow into the thick part. It is certainly not clear cut that the hull is simply made of iron, because it isn't. Saying that the hull was wholly made of iron would seem to be misleading, though I would agree the way Massie has it, you would imagine the ship was entirely oak with armour tacked on the outside. I am assuming the ends are simply iron from what I have found, but I havn't proved it. I did see a note that some iron hulls were clad in wood because it was less prone to fouling. So, I would say while Massie has caused confusion, from our article on warrior I would have formed the mistaken impression that no timber was used in her hull, whereas it formed the greater part of its thickness. I start to wonder whether perhaps massie is simply a little mischievous. Sandpiper (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * here is a link to an old encyclopedia describing construction. Says the stern had 24 in of teak, though I wasn't quite clear if inside or out, and the bow 10 in of iron. Sandpiper (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that in fact you yourself uploaded the picture which I pointed out, and so presumably already knew much or all of the points I just made. Thus, it may be that your objection to massie's comment is not what appeared to me as the problem before starting to investigate. As I said, the wiki article would lead one to believe there was no iron in the hull of Warrior, whereas in fact it relied significantly upon timber. Yes, it seems to have been a next-generation ship but timber had not been dispensed with completely. What more exactly did you object to?


 * The hull of a ship consists of structural material of a ship (the various ribs, girders and beams which give it its shape - think of them as bones) and the 'skin' of the ship. You can see that Warrior certainly had these made of iron, in the fascinating article you posted. So she had an iron hull. The armour plate which lies outside of the hull did, indeed, include wood. (I assume the armour was tapered at either end to reduce drag).
 * Of course this is quite a technical point. However, Massie was either mistaken about Warrior's construction or didn't know the difference between hull and armour; either way he should have known what he was talking about. To add to the confusion, many early ironclads did have wooden hulls, and wood persisted in ironclad armour until the development of steel composites in the 1880s. But all this is by-the-by. Massie was wrong. Regards, The Land (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is becoming a technical point. However, the only line in massie which is wrong is the the 5 words, 'her hull was made of oak'. I was concerned about the description of her as an 'ironclad', but that seems to be correct, despite the suggestion of meaning iron over something else. I am not yet convinced by your argument that the hull was made entirely of iron. If you are dismissing the wood and armour plates as equivalent to tyres tied along the outside as bumpers, then I would agree. However, the armour was permanently fixed in place and seems likely to have contributed significantly to the shape, performance, certainly strength, and structural integrity of the ship. There seems to be a question mark over wrought iron alone as a hull material. Now, oak is emtirely wrong and the sentence ought to have said something like,'her hull was teak over a wrought iron frame and skin, with 4 in plates over the teak...', but there was an awful lot of teak. How does the strength of 18 in of teak compare to 1 in of slightly brittle iron? My own interpretation of the facts so far would be to disagree with any claim she was an all-iron hulled ship, because she wasn't. I think a certain amount of hype has crept into her description. There was more iron than the iron over tiber framed ships, but it had still not been eliminated from the design.
 * I can't tell from pictures if the citadel tapered at either end, but this would have complicated the design. I am still puzzled how the ends were smoothly fitted to the centre. The whole point of having armoured bulkheads through the ship must imply that the armour was continuous around the corners of the box, or it would be a very weak point. Also, as I said, whether the outer plates in fact formed a watertight skin in their own right. Sandpiper (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, the teak was there to stop shells, not water. Warrior's construction was basically similar to that of Great Eastern or the earlier iron frigates, with armour bolted on to the outside: and totally different to the construction of a wooden ship, even a wooden ironclad. Not one of the books I have read about 19th-century naval design agrees with your interpretation. The Land (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, surely the point of writing a new book about something which has been covered before is to provide new interpretations. Somewhere above I said I would like to see exactly how the hull and three main sections fitted together before forming a view. Also, are you quite sure the teak was not waterproof? I agree it is a reasonable assumption, but that may be all it is. It is clear Massie made a mistake about species, and seems likely he made a larger one. But I would still say he has managed in this muddle to make a point not apparent to me from eg the wiki article, or presumably in general perceptions of the ship, that there was still significant use of timber in its construction, whatever precisely its purpose.
 * On the broader point though, I don't accept that making a few mistakes here and there (or even a lot)invalidates any book. I don't believe in perfect accuracy. It is a question of extracting information from where you find it, with an open mind each time any contradiction arises. And again, if everyone wrote exactly the same things, what would be the point of new books? I noticed there are several articles without references which contain narrative very similar to Massie, yet with sufficient difference on points that I suspect they came from somewhere else. On the whole this gives me confidence in Massie rather than the reverse. Sandpiper (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say this kind of error invalidated the thesis of a book. It does, however make it unreliable as a source of detailed reference information. And, if you recall, this debate started with a technical point about ship design. It might, of course, be that Massie is right on both dreadnought compartmentation and the hull of the Warrior. However I prefer to believe books by naval architects and professional historians. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Going back to Warrior. Whether the teak was waterproof is redundant, because the teak was sandwiched between the hull (iron) and the outer layer of armour (iron) as you can very clearly see in both the photo and the description in that link you supplies. The Land (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The old article about building warrior talked about the armour plates being 'dovetailed' together. I can only see how that would literally work if they are completely flat, or have a regular continuous curve. It might suggest the outer armour was itself firmly sealed and waterproof, which would make it even more an integral part of the hull. Unfortunately we don't really have enough exact detailed information about it to tell. Your picture of the bulkhead shows rather rotten wood, not surprising after this time, but the space is clearly sealed from the sea at the ends. A longer piece somewhere about the restoration of the ship might go into this: did they remove the armour to replace this rotten wood in the main hull (assuming it is in the same state), or is the armour sealed so they just left the wood to rot quietly, not being essential any more to resist artillery? Sandpiper (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, you are barking up the wrong tree. Every authority I have read gives the impression that a ship's armour is not really regarded as part of its hull, and that the teak used in constructing Warrior was part of the armour. If only detailed plans of the construction of Warrior will satisfy you on this point then I suggest you go and locate some. If you asked the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, the Royal Naval Museum, or the HMS Warrior Preservation Trust they might do. (Though the latter two do have websites, which also refer to her as being "iron-hulled"....) In the meantime there is little point continuing this discussion. The Land (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Adler von Lübeck
Hello. There is a Good Article on the Hanseatic Adler von Lübeck in the German WP I contributed to, which, I believe, warrants a translation into English (I have already done a bit). Do you know any contributors who were interested in undertaking such a translation? I am turning to you, because I saw last year your good work over at the article on ironclad warships. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Fairbanks in Dreadnought
Hi there. I vaguely recall that you included Fairbanks in the Dreadnought article in the origins of the all-big-gun ship. I've always been somewhat contemptuous of his "revisionist" article because his detailed rebuttal of Marder on fire-control was simply not borne out by the facts (i.e. ill-informed twaddle). I've only just gotten round to reading it, but Matthew S. Seligmann's new article "New Weapons for New Targets: Sir John Fisher, the Threat from Germany, and the Building of HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible, 1902-1907" in the latest International History Review demolishes every single one of Fairbanks' arguments with detailed evidence on the importance of salvo-firing, torpedo ranges and other reasons leading to the Dreadnought "revolution". Just thought I'd let you know (as at some point I will remove the offending parts in question). --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds very interesting. I don't have access to the IHR... I don't suppose you have a copy of the article in question which I might be able to read? The Land (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Drop me a line via "Email this user" and I'll send you a pdf of it, no bother. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Had a chance to read through the article yet and draw any conclusions? Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 03:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Back to this old saw again. Haven't commented on the A-Class review for Dreadnought as I've only got back to my collection of books this week. I'm still slightly unhappy with a section on fire control in "The switch to all-big-gun designs" and thought I'd bring it up with you:

"A uniform calibre of gun meant streamlined fire control. The designers of Dreadnought preferred an all-big-gun design because it would mean only one set of calculations about adjustments to the range of the guns.[27] Some historians today hold that a uniform calibre was particularly important because the risk of confusion between shell-splashes of 12-inch (30 cm) and lighter guns made accurate ranging difficult. However, this viewpoint is controversial; firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important,[28] and confusion of shell-splashes does not seem to have been a concern of those working on all-big gun designs.[29] Nevertheless, the likelihood of engagements at longer ranges was important in deciding the heaviest possible guns should become standard, hence 12-inch (30 cm) rather than 10-inch (25 cm)."

"firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important" - Brooks in Dreadnought Gunnery demonstrates that salvo-firing was already being used by British pre-dreadnoughts, and to my mind Seligmann demolished Fairbanks' opinions on this.

As to confusion between shell splashes, I've suggested it before on Wikipedia that it would be like stating the bleeding obvious to these people. An acquaintance of mine has shown me that the matter is addressed in fair detail in the U.S.N. "Gunnery Instructions" for 1905 on pp 376-377 as part of the chapter "Note on Fire Control". It is perhaps worth quoting the preliminary statement by the British Committee on Designs on 3 January 1905: "The great value of uniformity of armament hardly requires comment; it is so self-evident." It then lists interchangeability of parts, simplicity of fire-control (with all that can mean), simplicity of ammunition supply and less ammunition required, and "others which led to the adoption of uniformity of armament which are intimately associated with the calibre of gun decided upon for the main armament of battleships."

Comments? I did notice btw the more balanced change you made to earlier mention of the issue. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right - we shouldn't rely on Fairbanks very much. Do you want to amend the offending paragraph? Your comments on the A-class review would be useful, as everyone there has very strong opinions about dashes and reference formatting, but virtually nothing to say about naval history. The Land (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire
Gidday from NZ, thanks for reverting those annoying symbols in this article; I was going to do the job myself, they were driving me up the wall! Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WWI topic list
WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive. :-) Kirill (prof) 00:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The Land (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: World War I eastern front
No problem, it was my pleasure. I'm just glad I could help. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska-class FAC
I replied to your concern here a few days ago, but I think that you missed it. :) Thanks! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Satsuma/ Settsu
If it can help, Japanese photograph before 1956 are PD anyway. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Message for you
– Joe Nu  tter  01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Messines
Sure thing. I'm in the middle of a few other projects right now, but I'll add it to my list. Cam (Chat) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Turtle ship
Hello. I remember that in 2007, you were very active in creating the article Ironclad warship. In that process, material such as the Turtle ship was moved out of the page. Since then, there is a long-going dispute on the page itself, whether the vessels featured iron armour or not. To solve the matter I recently asked User:Bradv for his Third Opinion. Following his suggestion, I rewrote then the section basing every single assertion on published references. However, User:Melonbarmonster2 keeps on discussing me, instead of the contents, and has repeatedly removed material without proper explanation. His history shows IMHO that he confines most of his edits to the defense of perceived attacks on Korean history and culture. I put a template on his talkpage, but he wants none of that. Since Bradv seems currently in WP holidays, I am turning to you to take a look at the matter. See Talk:Turtle ship Regards 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Gun Powder Ma (talk)


 * Thanks. Sounds like a good suggestion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

dreadnought HARI

 * If I have time, I'll do a HARI on dreadnought's FAC. Later! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1(f)
Hi. I'm sorry to say that your minority status on the issue is becoming ever clearer. Please re-read the debate, and reconsider your revert.. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

 * I'm looking at your contribs and see no evidence that you posted notice of the disussion on-wiki. I assume you IRL chat?? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I accused you of canvassing. I was completely wrong.
 * It seems to me that some folks are now recanting their Opposes. The whole argument seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding; see my last post to the page.
 * I think we need to move toward a !vote soon. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Way to go on getting dreadnought to FA. That is one heck of a beastly article, and many people will learn a lot from it. Great job. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:battleships
I'd be honored to help with the push. My avaliability will fluctuate somewhat though on account of school, but I will make an honest attempt to be there for whatever you need help with. TomStar810 (Talk) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things. Ping me for help too if you need/want it, and you have a reply on my talk page. Cheers! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I figure that I'll actually answer your original question with regards to maintaining Battleship. I would think that a MILHIST Peer Review would suffice. One thing I did notice just now in looking at the article was a few fact tags. -MBK004 07:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

←Question, why isn't Fast battleship included in BBhistory? -MBK004 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's a) a very ill-defined term and b) doesn't fit into the chronological sequence of the topic. The Land (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wendy Campbell
I have nominated Wendy Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Wendy Campbell&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New project you may be interested in
I've officially incorporated a project that - at the moment- is aimed at bringing the US fleet of battleships up to FA status, and being as how you have been a major player with the battleship articles here on Wikipedia I thought I would offer you a chance to join us. We are calling this project Operation Majestic Titan, and you can learn more about it here if you want. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jody Dunn
Hi there. Back in 2004, you contributed to this article; five years later(!), I have nominated it for deletion. If you are interested, your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey Land, let me say that it is a great pleasure to see you active and editing again. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) The Land (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

3rd Ypres
I dug out my copy of Travers as a comparison to Green and broadly speaking found that Green was the more convincing, particularly on the gestation of the OH. He shows that Wynne's original draft was much more supportive of Haig and that the amendments and redrafts by Edmonds were much more sympathetic to Gough, though not to the point of endorsing everything he did (or said afterwards). P.186, 'Travers seems to have based his conclusion that Edmonds' final version was pro-Haig... that Haig gave way to Gough 'as regards distant objectives and the neglect of the Gheluvelt plateau'. This though was Wynne's judgement which Edmonds retained and which Travers agrees with [though Keith-264 doesn't]; Edmonds holds Haig responsible for the ambition of the plan and suggests that while Haig may have had doubts about Gough's plan he didn't communicate these with Gough. Green concludes that it is not tenable to see the OH as Pro-Haig or anti-Gough. Apparently Travers considers the book to be anti-Gough yet that Gough was satisfied with the published draft. Green says that Gough wasn't 'worn down' by the argument because he kept on objecting even after reading the final draft. "...as regards the analysis of myself as a commander, I do not think the facts justify everything you say.'.
 * It seems to me that the OH and much written afterwards manages to underestimate the resilience of the German defence and the effect of the rains in August and puts too much emphasis on a facile 'win-lose' criterion of success and the difference between Gough's preparations and Plumer's which are more ones of detail than kind. I fancy that P&W grasp this when they point out that Plumer's attacks had more continuity with Gough's than has sometimes been stated. The unseasonable lousy weather of August also seems to have been more a problem for air observation of the counter-battery effort in July and August than for the infantry's mobility, bearing in mind that Gough was willing to postpone attacks due to the wet ground.

OH1917II, P. 433 (App XIV) has the 8th Div Operation Orders of 22nd July which seem to me to demonstrate that it was not taking part in a 'breakthrough' operation but a 'break in'. P. 440 has Gough's reply to Davidson which again describes a succession of 'deliberate and organized attacks every ten days'. He makes what seems to me to be the entirely reasonable point that the best results of attacks occur in the first couple of days so being organised to make the most of the opportunities that offer is important and that this should depend on the state of the German opposition as well as on geography. The 'red line' is clearly an aspiration dependent on the German defence crumpling rather than a line to be attained at all costs.Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Empress pepper pot

 * ... that someone owned the "Empress" pepper pot (pictured) in the 4th century and we know the Romans had pepper because the Vindolanda tablets confirm it?

Created by The Land (talk), Victuallers (talk). Self nom at 12:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)



FAC for HMS Princess Royal
If you are satisfied that your comments on Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive1 have been addressed could you please update them? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what other issues you have with the prose in this article; otherwise I won't be able to address them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hoxne Hoard
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Empress pepper pot
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)
Before this comes back to FAC, who are your favorite copyeditors (or good writers) for British ship articles? If you don't want to suggest someone, I'll put out a general call at WT:SHIPS. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't have anyone in mind - if I didn't have a very long list of Wiki projects I should be attending to, I would do it myself! A general call is probably a good idea... The Land (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Following Dank's request, I've had a go at copyediting the article. Any chance you could wander over, and point out anything that needs a little more holystoning? -- saberwyn 03:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall try to have a look this weekend. The Land (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ypres
Greetings Land, I tidied a few typos on your edit, I hope you don't mind. I wonder if we need a bit more on the blue, black, green and red lines as objectives? Relying on P&W does I fear contain a risk that XVIII an XIX Corps' repulse from the red line to the green line can look like a defeat rather than a success (the red line was strictly dependent on the state of the German defence). II Corps on the plateau was also on the flank of the main attack so the substantial advance that it did manage shouldn't be underestimated.Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I agree. The way P&W present it, the French did 'best', then XIV Corps - even thought XVIII and XIX Corps went further - so I was mulling over the best way to present things. Talking about the different lines of advance in detail is probably the best way to do it.... The Land (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting
Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:
 * Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
 * 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
 * Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks
 * Joseph Seddon
 * User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting
Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see Community_IRC_meetings


 * Many Thanks
 * Joseph Seddon


 * User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Book of the Dead
Well done on the GA. I'm intending to do a mini-british museum at Derby Museum next year .... would you come? Victuallers (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a GA, it's a nomination! :-) The Land (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely a formality :-) Well yes I did think it was GA ... but it should be soon, and the other question? Victuallers (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - let me know what and when, when you have those details.! My schedule doesn't often let me get out of London, but I could be tempted... The Land (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Book of the Dead spells
Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA
Thanks for that, one of the reasons I work with images and not pros Fasach Nua (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship talk page comments
I spotted your comments on the talk page over at Iowa class battleship. If you feel the article still needs attention in some areas then please sound off at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Iowa class battleship so I can work on fixing these issues. It may not look it over the last week or two, but I have been processing the suggestions there and slowly implementing them into the article, and I would really like for the bulk of the major issues to come in during the PR rather than the impending ACR/FAC. I know you to be one of the veteran ship writing contributors, so I am willing to bet that you have probably singled out a few things the others have not yet picked up on that could use addressing before the march on to ACR and FAC, so I owuld be more than happy to address your comments about the articles short comings if you were to comment at the PR. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll get to those in due time. Right now, I'm still looking into some earlier suggestions concerning weaponry and the human element, but my attempts thus far to locate meaningful material have been frustrating. Such is the life of the editor(s) who aim high in assessment :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to trouble you to come back to the section header comment you made in the article and tell me where you would put a cultural significance section in all that. I'm preparing to move on the section header comment you made, but the rearranging of the section headers is going to need to be carried out in my sandbox since I suspect this is going to be a task that will take up a day or two and I do not want to leave the article in a state of disarray for that long. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NMM-related
Template:NMM-related has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Book of the Dead
Hi, I've looked at your GA nomination of the article here. I've put it on hold for now, but the issues should not be major with your expertise. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've passed the article for GA!  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1
Hi, I'm running down the list of MILHIST FACs and I see that Ed17 asked at 03:18 on 24 December 2010 if his edits satisfied your concerns. I don't see a response. If you have time to spare, please either revisit or let us know on the page that you don't have time to revisit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1
Hey Land (your name is still a contradiction...), thanks for the review of this article. I greatly appreciate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship Peer Review
The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:NMMC
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but at the moment the family is dealing with a very recent and far reaching incident, and I am not sure that can lend all the time I want to help out here. I'll take a closer look at the page and the info on it tomorrow and perhaps make a few suggestions, but don't be too surprised if it looks like my head is not in the game, such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just wanted to make sure you were aware of what's going on - anything Milhist can do to help will be very, er, helpful. :-) The Land (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Gymnopilus maritimus/archive2
Hey. Just letting you know that I have renominated Gymnopilus maritimus for featured article status. Your thoughts would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)