User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 7

WPF1 Newsletter (November)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Six years later...
I just saw your question at Talk:Striga_(plant). In case you are still interested, it is Desmodium that kills striga. See push-pull technology for more details. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding
Hello,

do you want to be co-nom at Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive4? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)
EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
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) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

P-51 intro box photo
Discussed on the talk page. Cheers ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Triumph TR7 Sprint
An article that you have been involved in editing, Triumph TR7 Sprint, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Hugh Le Caine
Port Arthur is, indeed, in Northwestern Ontario. This is a fairly common mistake (and I have gotten into arguments with people about it, both here and in real life). Southwestern Ontario is the area around Windsor and London. Northern Ontario is everything north of North Bay. The line separating Northwestern and Northeastern Ontario vaguely follows the east shore of Lake Superior, then heads due north by Wawa. The sparsely populated northern half of Northern Ontario is called "the far north".  vıd ıoman  01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense if you understand the history of Ontario. Everyone lived south of North Bay since the 1700s, they've only been living up here since the late 1800s. Relative to 95% of Ontarians, this region is "up north". Some people in Toronto even consider places like Barrie and Ottawa to be in Northern Ontario. vıd ıoman  01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Handloading
Noticed you deleted my addition of shotshell reloading process descriptions in the Handloading article, under a guise of "Not DIY". Don't understand why you believe this was a Do It Yourself instruction set you deleted, as there were clearly not enough steps in the discussion to enable someone actually to reload even a single shotgun shell. Although you may not be aware, there is an industry standard of 5 stations used with shotshell presses, with the station functions standardized, unlike with metallic cartridge presses that have but one "station" that require swapping out dies to do batch operations on metallic cartridges one function at a time. Also, I believe there was clearly a shortfall of discussions on shotshell handloading in the article as it stood, hence the need to broaden the content to include shotshell handloading, too, as I had added. As you can tell from my "handle", Miguel Escopeta, I have a strong interest in shotguns! Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
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) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gus Grissom's status
Thanks for your edit. I've never been happy with "killed during training" but couldn't quite think how to word it. We both appreciate they were doing more than "training" like the others killed before flight; they were intensely preparing to go. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Cross
Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2008. I've just removed it, as it's improved significantly in that time. If you disagree, please re-add the tag or consider taking it to AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Idiotic"
"It's pretty idiotic to include links only accessible to people with an L.A. library card." How would you suggest this information be presented? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
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) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Formula One in 1973
Lotus actually changed its name to John Player Special at this time, so there is good reason to display it thus. --Falcadore (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yamamoto
I would greatly appreciate your commenting on what I wrote under your earlier comments on the Yamamoto talk page under the Decision heading.TL36 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Sought
Hi - You and I have edited many of the same pages, and so I ask for your opinion. Yesterday's featured article on Thomas Kinkaid gives Kinkaid the credit for the victory at Surigao Strait, as the commander. My thought is that, of course, the credit goes to Oldendorf, and Kinkaid was one level removed. I made a small edit that got reverted by Hawkeye7, an esteemed author. If you have an interest, would you add to the discussion on my talk page? Thank you. JMOprof (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

re Dix - CHECKUSER also needed
Saw your reply; he just came at me on one of the noticeboards, BLP I think, with charged accusations while continuing to claim neutrality; I'm pretty sure it's one of the IP addresses that came before he showed up a few days ago.......CHECKUSER admin needed to have a look behind the veil.....and as I've commented, to see if it's from a known government or party or p.r. company office......I updated on WP:3RR noticeboard about his attack on me, as he's gone and reverted again.......and in an edit comment claimed that my deletion of the attack material was "pro-NDP".Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick spelling lesson
I noticed your edit to the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix. I appreciate your edits fully, but you need to know something. I write all articles in British English (because I generally only edit UK English articles). The noun, as in "free practice", has two Cs in it. The verb, as in "I practised", has an S in it. Hope you understand now. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid white space
The white spaces you are currently running around deleting are there for a reason - they allow the infoboxes to be connected to the corresponding text, instead of the text bunching up to the left with a long column of infoboxes to the right. Your edits to Ford Prefect, for instance, made for an enormous whitespace to the bottom let of the page, with generational infoboxes that no longer corresponded to the sections. Please reconsider,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

NCIS
I can't believe I found another person who wants to give DiNozzo a smack. Cheers to you!! i would give you a barnstar but there are no barnstars for NCIS... :P So, I'll give you a Burt as a give. Enjoy it and be good to it.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was joking about the barnstar for giving a samck to DiNozzo. But I think there has to be a barnstar for contributing to Articles related To NCIS.

Thanks for the cookies they were delicious :P  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
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) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=554210172 your edit] to Engine swap may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Eagles
Hello Trek You reverted an edit I made on this page. I’ve left a note here about it; which is correct, do you know? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Nazi" broad brush
Thanks for your "As for "Nazi"..." comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Those who insist on labeling everything German from that era as "Nazi" are practicing the same principle used by the Nazis themselves, who in propaganda sought to blame "the Jews" for "everything." What idiocy! Sca (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken Johnson
Hello, I saw where you relinked Ken Johnson in The California Kid article. There does not appear to be an article about that Ken Johnson in Wikipedia and a link to the Ken Johnson disambiguation page does nothing to help the reader, so I'm wondering why you did that. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
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) 14:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
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) 09:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This might interest you
There are a fair bit of firearm articles that need clean-up, mostly due to the edits from a group of editors, who might just be one person, per Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa. I've done some clean-up after them but it's a lot of work because it's far easier to add poorly researched material, but takes a lot more work to verify properly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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) 16:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567232524 your edit] to Lotus-Ford Twin Cam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * bearing construction with a larger bore than the stroke, it was by no means a performance engine.{ clarifyme|date=August 2013}

Regarding the Pedro Rodriguez page, you are correct about "Grand Prix" being a proper noun, but on no other page is each instance of the term Grand Prix italicized. This is not normal practice despite it being a foreign term. Furthermore, as part of the names of those events it should not be italicized anyway. The same goes for Magdalena Mixhuca, the name of a location, not simply a term in Spanish. I also believe this would apply to Scuderia Rodriguez, as that was the name of their team and not simply a foreign term, but I'll leave that up to you. 205.251.185.250 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fiat Mephistofeles or Mephistopheles?
I see you changed the redirect, which is fair enough, but it doesn't match the most common name for the car, or the spelling that seems to be used most. Worth noting several respected sources (such as CNN, Daily Telegraph and Der Spiegel) do call it a Fiat. Warren (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It was always Mephistopheles, as Eldridge was British. He built it from a Fiat chassis and a Fiat engine, although without any further notable involvement by Fiat. However Fiat, keen to bask in the glory (and the large "Fiat" name on the grille), Italianised this in their own promotional material as Mefistofeles. "Mephistofeles" is just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eldridge was happy enough to carry the Fiat name on grille and bodywork, so it's hard to say that Fiat Mephistopheles is wrong or unsupported as a contemporary name. It was widely referred to as Mephistopheles alone, but mostly by sources close to the car, where the Fiat origin was very obvious. It's distinctive that of the several similar specials of this time, this was unusual in preserving the name of its original factory, rather than the special builder. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hirohata Merc
Unfortunately the image I uploaded has the wrong type of creative Commons license, so its going to be deleted. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
.. but sticking in that "Italic text" tripped my anti-vandal tool. Philip Trueman (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Breech-Loading Weapons
Hello

Thank you for fixing and improving my recent edit on Breech-loading_weapon. I wanted to discuss the wording of this:

"At least one New Zealand example, fully carved in traditional Māori style, was sold in recent times in the UK. It is not known if this weapon was used by Māori rebels fighting for von Tempsky or if it was a captured weapon or one of the carbines sold to private citizens."

The reason given for reverting the change to "Māori rebels" was: "Māori were considered rebels".

I feel like "rebels" should be dropped for several reasons: 1) Māori rebels would be those supporting the Kingitanga, fighting against the British. Māori fighting for von Tempsky would have been loyal to Britain (so-called kūpapa). 2) Neutrality: though the Kingites in 1863 were seen as being rebels who opposed British sovereignty, the war was initiated by Britain.

Thanks again. Craigthelinguist (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Native" & "indigenous"
Are you sure you want to use "native" and "indigenous" as synonyms for "domestic" in a Canadian context? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits
How was "less than ideal" ? It's completely equivalent for me. I checked your edits today and there is a high percentage of edits that don't really improve the article. Adding the hasty reverts, that's what I would call "less than ideal". Happy editing. 79.255.219.252 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
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) 00:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574709279 your edit] to Dušan Popov may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Portugal], p.144. Lonely Planet. ISBN 1-74059-918-7. When a university friend, Johann Jebsen|Johann "Johnny" Jebsen, approached him to work for the Abwehr, he informed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Du%C5%A1an_Popov&action=history
Hi Trekphiler, I undid your edit because the red wikilink was broken. Is there a problem to link to a file? In my opinion, readers coming across a interwikilinked file, some day, there will be someone out there who knows more on that subject and write an article. Am I wrong? Lotje (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

McCollum Memo
Hello, I re-removed three pieces of information on the McCollum Memo article. The first two are good pieces of information, however they violate the self-publishing policy (WP:SP). Anyone can log onto Amazon, write a review, and call themselves an admiral, therefore this information cannot be used until it comes from a more reliable source (you mentioned that it didn't originate on Amazon, however, a random PDF also would not constitute a good source--it needs to come from a source that is published by a third-party). Even if this more reliable source is found, it still might violate WP:QS, in that this admiral's review begs the question where did he get his information from? The third piece of information was removed as it violates WP:QS in that it is a conflict of interest (a person testifying to the truth of their own words or to the truth of something that involves them). Shicoco (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey there again. I believe you when you say that the Amazon source is a copy of a more valid source. However, it violates the rules as it is now, and assuming good faith does not mean bad sources are allowed, it means that we assume that other editors have good intentions. Shicoco (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

piped links
See: Redirect--Petebutt (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Caterham Group Template
The Caterham Group template needs some fixing do you have any ideas on how to improve it? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Villers-Brettoneux
Talk:Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux comment here re copy edit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheriff
Begging forgiveness for the placement of this message, I am responding to your question about the identity and purpose of a picture of an individual shooting the Ingram Mac 10. Please understand that I am not reversing your edit nor complaining in anyway about your decision to eliminate the picture but you asked a question. The individual pictured is the owner of that particular firearm. He bought the remaining supply when the Ingram Company went out of business and distributed them to law enforcement agencies. Some people would find the picture interesting because of the lack of muzzle climb during and extended burst. Again, apologizing for the placement of this response and hoping you will remove it if objectionable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael E. Cumpston (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nitrogen in tyres
Hi Trek, check my talk page ;), Cheers, Emir. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
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) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Kitty O'Neil
"Never heard of her" - too bad > Kitty O'Neil. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Tang
Most people simply do not know what a tang is. It is not a well known fish. Some people may think about a powdered orange concentrate, but most everyone else may well wonder what a tang really is. What is wrong with simply puting in a subtle 4-letter note about the origin of the name? Alandeus (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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) 06:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_controlGaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
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) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
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) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Blitz
Hi Trekphiler and Binksternet. I'm sorry to bother you both but I see you have both had previous involvement of the WP:DENY variety with Talk:The Blitz at Talk:The Blitz and Talk:The Blitz. I'm now looking at the new section Talk:The Blitz and wondering if there are some similarities, or is it just another editor with similar interests? It doesn't have to be the same person, of course, and I would prefer to AGF, but I did wonder a little ... the discussion there isn't really getting productive and seems likely to plough the same furrow, though I don't want to upset anyone who is sincerely trying to improve the article. If either/both of you felt like having a look I would be most grateful; at the same time, if you don't wish to then no-one will die! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
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) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wild Bill Shrewsberry edits
Hello. For your information, I did not vandalize the article. Mr. Shrewsberry is indeed a friend of mine and as for me, I was a longtime Wikipedian. I left the project about three years ago and voluntarily gave up my adminship. In fact, I will sign in and leave word right here beneath this comment. Sincerely, --12.131.234.206 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There. I'm now logged in and FYI, I'm the guy who originally wrote the article. I left this project after being cyber-stalked and because of these kinds of petty bickerings. I hope this helps. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
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) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 15:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
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) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

New articles
Hi Trekphiler, Some things you might consider: 1. record your new articles at New articles (Aircraft) (including engines, airlines accidents, etc.) 2. Take a lot of the back-breaking work out of article creation by using Template:WPAVIATION creator

Happy contributions. Pete--Petebutt (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611868146 your edit] to Enzian may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * in front of the target and then detonate a 500 kg warhead, in hope of bringing down several bombers at once. Christopher, John.  ''The Race for Hitler'

Specs
Hi Trekphiler Another good article, thanks. For Specifications of rocket engiens you can use Template:Jetspecs, as it covers most of what might be required and it is not too difficult to add the odd spec or two that aren't covered, on an individual basis.--Petebutt (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
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) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sikorsky R-4
Hi there; not sure what your problem was with the edit, but have tried something else - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikorsky_R-4&diff=614665908&oldid=614139924 - which I hope you will not take exception to. Springnuts (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - you are wrong when you say that after my amendment the article identifies all Hoverflys as Mk I aircraft. I have not made that identification, nor does the article!  It didn't say it before, and it doesn't say that now, and my adding an apostrophe didn't change that fact.  It says "many Mk 1 aircraft were transferred ..." .  If anything this implies that they had other marks of Hoverfly.  But, if you feel the article is wrong or misleading, please try an amendment.  As far as the amendment I tried; it is simply this, that "Is" looks like an inadvertent capitalisation of the word "is".  I tried replacing the capital letter "i" with the numeral "1" but you didn't like that.  I tried an apostrophe - a perfectly valid as a way to remove confusion - but you don't like it.  No point in an edit war, so I will try an rfc when I have the time. Springnuts (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas A-26 Invader
Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! 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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Western Auto Works talk page
I have started a discussion at Talk:Western Tool Works (automobile company), questioning the notability of the company. As the creator of the article, your input would be appreciated. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation...
Hi, Trekphiler - thank you for the punctuation tweaks. While your punctuation crusade is certainly noble, I'm afraid it will be an infinite journey because of the varying punctuation usage in the US vs Europe (UK). Hopefully we are close to being on the same page with the following article: ? If not, please let me know where it differs. Wishing you a Happy Holiday!! Atsme ☯  Consult  19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Italics
Hi Trekphiler,

Noted your edit on Ford Anglia a while back (rm italics) & removed a couple more myself. I was just wondering, is this "crusade" an on-going WP "project", because a number of vehicle infoboxes have them? (See Ford Escort (Europe) for example). I assume this use is wrong & italics should be reserved for written works, film etc. (WP:ITALICS) but am seeking information or clarification before I remove any examples I come across. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What's going on here
Dear user Trekphiler. You're a third degree veteran editor with some 50,000 edits. What's going on here? You've erased my explanation on this talk page and made repeated trivial, unfounded reverts. We're not going to have to escalate this, are we? I sure hope not. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 1st revert "Nothing wrong with the original syntax" following my immediately previous edit "Fixed syntax" left the misimpression you were objecting to a revision from a general page heading to a specific section, which was my 1st edit to that internal link. All "Fixed syntax" following it did was remove a duplicate # I hadn't noticed got added using cut-and-paste to ensure a proper duplication of the section I was linking to. Since I knew that this latter edit corrected an actual error, I evidently wrongly concluded you were seeking to revert my 1st edit, not the 2nd.  Instead, you merely restored the duplicate #.  Confusion went viral from there.  See my response to yours at my Talk page.  All good now.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Philipp and others
Hi, please refrain from deleting cited material from articles which have gone through multiple Wiki reviews. If you feel the information is inappropriate, misplaced, or needs to be changed, please discuss before removal. This would be much appreciated. Thank you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
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) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor citation
Hey - just to let you know, I had removed the cn tag because the editor who added it appears to be a crank. See his talk page contributions - seems to have a problem with Japan for some reason. I don't have Toland on hand, but I'd wager that he covers that detail. Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the claim (I've seen it, too, & can't recall where :, & I only rv because I'd like to know myself, & I don't doubt there are people who've read less on it than us who'd doubt it. As for the adder being a crank...why does that surprise you? ;p TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as we've been editing, there shouldn't be anything that surprises us ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ford Model T
ROFLMAO. Ben there, done that. (Cliche double tap)  Nyth 63  02:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

dragster vehicle vs car
I noticed you changed the link to dragster (vehicle) back to pointing to dragster (car) at drag racing (this edit). I'm aware that "car" was used because "vehicle" is a self-redirect, but in my opinion, this is not the right way to handle this. Basically, by creating a red link to the "car" version, if that article is created, it would be the article that the "vehicle" redirect should point to (or occupy). Rather than creating a red link to a synonymous term, if the subject warrants its own article, it should be created at the better existing name ("vehicle"), which should be changed from a redirect to a normal article. If the subject does not warrant its own article (I assume it was merged with the drag racing article at some point in the past?), it should remain a redirect. I don't see a good reason to link to an alternate but synonymous term which does not exist just because the primary term redirects to the article being linked from. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=662536133 your edit] to LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Quiller changes
Re recent edits to the Quiller page: I am attempting to back up assertions made in the main text with direct quotations from the books and from the author. I can't see how this adds little, especially the quotation from the author which directly relates to the development of the series character. If the assertions are left as they stand I see it as quite reasonable that another editor will come along and add a citation note on each point. We are continually told to add evidence for the assertions being made in wikipedia articles, and that's just what I have done. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
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) 23:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unique Oak Leaves?
Hi, please refrain from deleting cited and very relevant information from articles. Only very few soldiers of WW2 received the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross while it was Germany's de facto highest award. Prien and Liebe were two recipients of 19 to which this unique criterion applies. If you compare this to the 890 recipients of the award you can see that this is only about 2%. Thanks for your understanding. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Japanese attacks
Your contention Pearl Harbor had no connection with air attacks in Hong Kong (specifically) or elsewhere in the Pacific within just over seven hours of each other is not supported by reliable military historians. Many have made the connection. It was an amazingly and very surprising coordinated attack. If Pearl Harbor was a surprise, their ability to strike so decisively across such a vast ocean front was BIG SURPRISE to Allied planners. That was followed not long after by the coordinated sequence resulting in the collapse of the Malay Barrier. That one was horribly shocking, throwing thousands of Allied personnel and civilians in flight like leaves before a hurricane (some amazing stories there) and has been noted by reliable historical sources as something not really contemplated by Allied planners. One hallmark of the Japanese of the 1941-early 1942 period was the ability to carry out those coordinated attacks across the vast Indo-Pacific ocean areas. Before you revert the minor addition of "see also" you might benefit from examining some of those in detail. I've cited one, Gill's history, that does a good job of the time line and coordination of the attacks. Palmeira (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Count your reverts and consider you may be edit warring now. If need be, though I usually don't care, I'll go to Milhist for other eyes and maybe some Admin action. There is no doubt among military references that Pearl Harbor was a part, disastrous part for Japan in the end, of an overall attack across the Pacific. Palmeira (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
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, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac Polaris
Whilst I am not of the view point that every concept car is non-notable, I fail to see how the Polaris is independently notable. It was a proposed rebadge of the Corvair that didn't even get past the mockup stage (which is generally the step before even a concept car); and beyond that, this article was totally unreferenced. Even if it were actually built, it probably still would need redirecting as it was a simple rebadge (at least at that point). There is a short section in the Corvair article that mentions the Polaris project, and that is referenced - hence the redirect. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fedden Mission and the Daimler-Benz DB 604
The only ducmented attempt by the Daimler-Benz aviation engine division to build an "X-layout" inline aircraft engine WAS the Daimler-Benz DB 604...using four banks of six cylinders each, it simply didn't seem to have been a "priority" for the RLM, nor the Luftwaffe's needs at the time it was dropped...but as the only "X-engine" project of the Daimler-Benz firm for aviation use, a "process of elimination" isolates the DB 604 project as being the most likely one that the Fedden Mission had examined.

A photo of that complex DB 604 aviation mill can be found here...hope it's of some help!

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Two FLIGHTGLOBAL links from the past to provide that link, FROM an article AUTHORED by Sir Roy HIMSELF ...

Page one of Sir Roy Fedden's OWN mention of the DB 604 mill...

And Page TWO from that same article, following the one with the photo!

Plus...page 3 and Page 4 of the article, concluding with its Page 5 for the finish!

Hope these might be of help with Fedden & the DB 604...

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pacific War citations
Hello, Trekphiler!

I'm raw at this stuff and a bit confused at what you mean. When you ask 'add to Hara cite,' do you want me to create a footnote and list each ship? I could do that if necessary. Thanks for you time.

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Holding the book in my hands, it appears I made an error in the date. The English translation was copyrighted in 1961, while the Japanese version was copyrighted in '67. The Naval Institute Press paperback edition (mine, depicting the embattled Hiei on the front cover) was published in 2011, which is what I'm going to change the citation to. Other than that, your changes fit the bill. As a side note, the table for IJN warship losses appears on page 297 in the Google Books edition in a badly scrambled preview, though if necessary I can cite another source.


 * Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the help, Trekphiler. Hara's book does in fact have a tabulation of USN losses (on the same page), though it doesn't cover all categories of shipping like the IJN table does, nor does it provide mention of other Allied losses. For those reasons I relied on other sources for that topic.


 * Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So do you think I should delete or move the ship/air losses elsewhere? (Apologies for clogging up your talk page...) Considering a large part of the Pacific War was naval combat, wouldn't it be useful to have the figures presented right next to each other where people can see them? Although it was a 'scary' amount of work, the numbers referenced actually do correspond to the combined losses of all major naval powers during the war (excluding the Chinese, who lost several cruisers and smaller ships in '37 and later).


 * Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Iron Coffins
Just to let you know I replied to your comments at MILHIST on this (here), a particularly on overclaiming; I was away for a bit so they might have slipped in under the radar. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
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) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackie Gejeian
Hello Trekphiler,

I noticed you were working on a Blackie Gejeian article awhile back: User:Trekphiler/Gejeian. I'm actually working on him myself now: User:EtienneDolet/Black Gejeian. I was wondering if you wanted to help in any way. I'd really appreciate it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology
I mixed up two people, you were nothing but polite to me. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

M19 Tank transporter
I have asked for more input here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Sammy D III (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert question
Hi Trekphiler, I saw your revert at Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal and wondered if you'd seen the page I linked to in the edit summary. I also wasn't sure what you meant by "pagetitles need changing". Let me know what you are thinking. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Triton
I also do not believe any 'consensus' was reached, and believe Marcd30319 has major WP:OWN issues. I was going to indicate that. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Vulcan (motor vehicles)
Hi Trekphiler. I think you might be interested in an amendment I have just made to this article. it looks as if you inserted the item. I try to show on the talk page why I believe the correct attribution for the fluid coupling mentioned in this article is to a German shipbuilding Vulcan. My interest is because Daimler used these patents and I was surprised to read the supposed British Vulcan involvement and delved more. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I'm puzzled too. If you have a look at the talk page it says what is incorrect and why. I just thought you might be dismayed to see the (wrong) link disappear. No, the statement from R & D is correct but it has been applied by you to the wrong Vulcan. Is that clearer? thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Grin) If I could take the above back I would. Thanks for you attention, Eddaido (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruger Mini-14 RFC
Greetings. I'm putting a Request for Comment on the Ruger Mini-14 Talk Page regarding the debate about the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre image. In relation to the RFC, I'll be reinserting the image so that commenters can see it in context. Please leave it there for at least 2 weeks to see if comments accrue. Tapered (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've also posted a notification of the RFC @ the point of view noticeboard. Tapered (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Flickr pictures
In the article you mentioned of Hirohata Merc, it has a Flickr picture used. You do know how to find Flickr pictures that you can use for Wikipedia. Right? Flickr has millions of picture possibilities. One of my major sources for my articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The other is the Library of Congress. You do use them for getting reference material and pictures I assume. I also use MeL a lot, since this is where I live. The BOD is another of my favorites. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
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) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are into history, this article I am especially proud of.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a 6-in-1 DYK that is associated with car history. That was a hard one to pull off.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an article I created on 9 October 2015 and it became an official Did You Know on 12 October 2015.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an article I created today and User:Paul W has made many great improvements to it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested...
Hi Trekphiler - You may be interested in the conversation going on over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. There is a move to eliminate the scholarship you and I are so interested in. I'm against it. ...best,user:JMOprof &copy;&iquest;&copy;&#0172; 01:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ...best, user:JMOprof &copy;&iquest;&copy;&#0172;  13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=686905907 your edit] to Avro Canada C102 Jetliner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * |stacking]] and diversion to a 120-mile (190-km)-distant alternate airport in a 20&amp;nbsp mph (30&amp;nbsp;km/h) headwind. The aircraft also needed to be able to operate from existing 4,000&

Caliber diameters
As I understand it, caliber diameters are spaced, whereas caliber names are not. For example: "The Gorblaxians decided to replace their 5.56mm NATO rifles with a new 7.62 mm design, which would allow them to take advantage of the many bullet types. However, due to their inability to decide between 7.62mm NATO and 7.62mm Tokarev, they eventually gave up and ordered everyone to use magic instead." Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before??
See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilcat. Probaly not Phil M, as he's totally ignorant about how IPs work, but certainly someone we've encountered before. - BilCat (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Streamliner automobiles
Just for full disclosure, I added articles to Category:Streamliner automobiles based on the list at Streamliner. Of course, that list probably needs cleaning up, too. clpo13(talk) 19:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A Volksrod is not a hot rod, it's a volksrod.
Hey Trekphiler, I notice you undid my editing on the hot rod page (not that it is a big deal), and how is a german compact, made by Adolf Hitler, modified rear-engine car a hot rod? It should be a "tuned" or "modified" car, not a hot rod. A hot rod is an american, hot rodded, usually a Ford, V8 car built in america. And also, volksrods are usually built in france or in australia. And most of the time, engine is not swapped or ultra modified, it's just tuned up. Thanks, (Muscle Car Driver (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC))

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
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) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

USS Plunger (SS-179)
Back in July 2008, you added a bunch of information to USS Plunger (SS-179) including a number of references to "Alden" but no details on the book or anything. Can you help fill that in? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at USS Pompano (SS-181), was it John Alden's 1979 The Fleet Submarine? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

LZ 129 Hindenburg
Let's take this to talk. The addition is a red-link to a non-existent article about a made-for-TV movie which isn't available. If you really think that deserves an entry in the LZ 129 article, fine, but *not* a red-link. Nobody is going to write an article about a TV movie that went away never to be seen again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel
The section you are referring to in WP:BIO in your comment on Rudolf Abel can you give me the link here? Adamdaley (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

edit to Ceres (dwarf planet)
regarding your revert of my revert, the edit of mine was an agreed-upon convention by other members of wikiproject astronomy. This can be found, among another topic, here. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Stevens 520/620
I agree the number of Mosin-Nagant rifles needs to be mentioned but I had written it twice (in history and rifles) and thought it best to only have it in one place. So I left it in w/ the details in rifles and removed it from the broader history of the company.Keydet92 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The mysterious Donald Nichols
Hello, Trekphiler,

A soldier waging war while garbed in civilian clothing is subject to being shot as a spy, according to international law. And the written records and photographs show that Nichols' most notable feats were performed in, you guessed it, civvies. Add the fact that commissioned officer-hood came late in his military career, and Donald Nichols (spy) seems right. Unless he is the same man as Don Nichols...which I cannot determine.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Don/ald Nichols, racer or spy?
Hello, Trekphiler,

Proposing a move or merger would be step two of the process. Step one is figuring out whether we have two folks with similar names, or two articles about the same guy. I have found unreliable sources that claim he is one and the same; I have compared photos that appear to be two different men at differing ages.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious
Ref this edit, the edit is dubious and problematic for the way its put together.

The article actually states:

Francois Heisbourg, who at the time was international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence, Charles Hernu, insists that his government did not know that the technical team was there. But, he says, the fact that it evidently was is inexcusable.

"It is now undeniable and... one should not belittle it. This was not what was supposed to be done. It is the sort of thing which mars what should otherwise have been picture-perfect co-operation between the two countries," he says.

But not all in the French government were in the dark about the technical team's presence in Argentina during the conflict. Pierre Lethier, former chief of staff of the DGSE - the French equivalent of Britain's foreign intelligence agency MI6 and signal intelligence headquarters GCHQ - admits that his department did know about them.

"This is what intelligence is for. You need sources. We had difficulties to penetrate the Argentinian army at that time during the Falklands conflict. So, the more helpers you have the better you are," he says.

Lethier told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave.

"It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point."

Best you can make of that is he was aware of some things the team were allegedly doing. The assertion he knew exactly what they were doing is not sustainable. In addition, the way the whole sentence is constructive is classic cherry picking. He may as well have written and I paraphrase "The French claim they knew nothing but they're lying bastards as this guy knew". WCM email 19:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that issue. I'm looking at the denial of knowledge at the time & Lethier admitting they had an informer on the team. Did DGSE know every detail as it was happening? Maybe not. Did they know broadly? I'd say so, & that's the question. I'm not seeing a claim DGSE knew everything moment-to-moment. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 20:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Kenzie


The article Phil Kenzie has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This Flight Tonight
Hello, thanks for your edit to this article. Re: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=This_Flight_Tonight&diff=698933476&oldid=683736804 this edit summary], the Joni Mitchell version of that track was never released as a single. Graham 87 12:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, it turns out that it was released as a B-side. Graham 87 09:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

An apology
Hello, I realise I've been editing reactively; today I found myself about to make an edit furiously, and was happy to stop before I did. Very likely there was an element of emotion in some earlier edits, so for my part and what it's worth, I'm sorry. The article is now in an uneven state, as the text had been relying on the cited quotes, which are now missing. I've proposed a compromise course of action on the talk page. It's not what I'd like, but it is a workable solution and I hope we can all go with it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions
HOUNDDAWG's reply to edits:

Rather than copy the revisions I made I'll simply ask you, how does one "engineer" an incident? Did Tojo (or someone else) "engineer" the attack on Pearl Harbor? (as opposed to "plan and execute") Just what engineering specialty would such knowledge fall under? Did Ted Kaczynski "engineer" the mailing of explosive devices?

And, if participants were "conspirators" why were they not punished as such? "Conspirators" by definition are two or more people who plan a crime, and make a single overt act toward the execution of that crime. Unless an act of war is punished (by the high command or The World Court at The Hague) it could be argued that the action taken was the exercise of personal initiative. In the absence of any reprimands, "conspirators" is a poor choice for a dictionary that wishes to rely on undisputed facts. (perhaps useful for a novelist like Gore Vidal, who frequently created dialogue in the name of artistic license, however)

And if the high command "had little choice but to follow up on the actions of the Kwantung Army..." how does one validate that statement to differentiate it from, say, pompous twaddle?" Was a high ranking officer quoted as saying that the high command "had little choice" in the matter, or, is this a seemingly logical but undocumented assumption on the part of the author?

Why don't you seek the opinion of an editor who is gifted enough to explain the page's weaknesses to you?

HOUNDDAWG (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dazzle
Hi again, could I say that I found your latest edit comment at best inconsiderate, at worst rude? The question of glossing people's names with their profession has in fact already reached the talk page. Let's discuss the matter there; editing is becoming uncomfortably heated on several fronts here. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Tabulating Machine Company
The name of the company is "The Tabulating Machine Company". Yes, "The" is part of the name and the redirect is "wrong". Thus the odd looking reference of a correct name linked to an incorrect redirect.

"Tabulating Machine Company" actually redirects to "Computer-Tabulating-Recording Company" which contains a section "The Tabulating Machine Company".

Would have been nice if you'd have looked, before reverting. And if you want to create a redirect for the correct name (either to Computing-... or to the section itself) that would be nice. I can't do it.

No reply necessary; I won't be back here. I'm sure you had the best intentions, Thanks, 50.136.242.131 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sikorsky R-4
Hi there. Friendly question: in what way is "Many of the RAF Hoverfly Mark I helicopters were transferred ..." strained grammar? And if it is, please suggest something better. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel Article
Article: Rudolf Abel

Congratulations on ruining the article even further. I had a feeling that eventually someone would place "Citations Needed", etc., throughout the article. While I've known about this issue since last night I've been thinking about this and I've given it some thought and it's something you won't be happy about. I'm going to put the article back to the way it was before you started taking things out. Yes, the parts about Reino Häyhänen (mainly) and other people. Yes, I've almost completed a re-write of Reino Häyhänen. So please be patient and I will update his page. Then I will do Rudolf Abel's page and update his page to reflect the changes. So please, please be patient! Adamdaley (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
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) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not only similar, but the same - while not identical
Hi!

Long ago, you reverted a small change I made (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.22_Winchester_Rimfire&diff=prev&oldid=667719390). I understand your point, but let me explain my reason for the change:

In the following sentence, I changed "identical" to "similar":

"The .22 Winchester Rimfire [ ... ] had a flat-nose slug, and is identical to the .22 Remington Special (which differed only in having a roundnosed slug)." The term "identical" is wrong because it directly contradicts that there is a change. It's not relevant that the change is minor - that's the whole point of the term.

Ok, now, the term "similar" makes it logically correct. But I see that it is too "weak"; They are "practically identical", in a way. So the right term is "the same" (or maybe "equal") - I'd like to edit it to:

"... had a flat-nose slug, and is the same as the .22 Remington Special ..."

Do you agree?

Volker Siegel (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page
Not sure if you can help but I am asking for some clarification on "third party" issues, I have seen many pilots references sources that are biographies or autobiographies used as citations/references, what is the COI issue on the page for Richard G. Thomas... other pilots such as Tony Levier, Milt Thompson, as well as Jimmie Angel use their own bios. In fact Karen Angel is the niece of Jimmie Angel and her book is sited twice for references on his page, can you help? Thanks Cydorsm (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
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) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
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) 13:28, 7 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) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
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) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 26 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) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 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) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 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) 04:45, 7 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) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 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) 23:20, 12 March 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)

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)

M0
Some days I'm slow and other days it's much, much worse. -- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Joe Lunati
If you do run across any published notices for any former drag racers, please update the dates and the "living" parameter on the talk page.. I have to keep reminding myself that 1964 was 53 years ago, and even the healthiest of drag racers could well have completed a full rich life by now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Wheat among the chaff
Hi Trekphiler. Just a quick note to let you know that what you reverted here was not vandalism. Each of the three changes appears to be constructive, so I have restored them. You might want to strike the warning you left on the IP's talk page about those specific edits. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Momsen lung
How could it have killed more submariners than it saved? Compy book (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Maudslay
I see you don't but I find it a great help to know where I am (or the location of what I am reading about) in time and space (was he an 18 yr-old or 60?) and I think most other readers would like to know too without suffering a diversion. Myself I think the lead is exactly the right place for it because that's where the reader is hooked or not. Isn't it? Do you really want to argue over this? Eddaido (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (transcribed from my talk page)
 * Here's the thing. The lead isn't supposed to be intimately detailed, just a quick pass over the essentials. Yes, the page should contain the exact info as far as possible, but the lead need not, & that's my objection. If you'd put it in the body of the page, I'd have left it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:18 & 21:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. I did not put it there. 2. Its been there a very long time (a decade or more?). 3. I think it should be there. re Studebaker-Packard see the Packard talk page. Eddaido (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Image size
Your edit of Cryptanalysis of the Lorenz cipher destroys the connected table. See my explanation for reverting it. If you have a serious point to make, please explain, but only after you have looked into the problem of half the table disappearing when you reduce the picture size.--TedColes (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit detaches the table from the photograph. The point of having them together is to illustrate the structure of the machine with the terminology that is used later in the article. I don't know whether it is possible to reduce the size of the table while retaining its legibility, if so that might mitigate your concern. --TedColes (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @TedColes I noticed that after the save... IDK how the table is sized, & why it's responding to the pic size (which is the issue for me, not the table). If there's a way to change the table size to avoid the ish, IDK what it is...& that being true, I'll (reluctantly) withdraw my objection--unless you can find a solution. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 20:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I have managed to reduce the width from 480px to 400px by increasing the depth of the table. --TedColes (talk) 11:27, 30 May 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) 12:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Errors in Bronco Buster (funny car)
You recently reverted my changes to Bronco Buster (funny car) without any explanation. This is puzzling, because they were to fix errors including typos and referencing errors. Why did you revert those changes? --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Empire
Thanks for switching "modern Czechia" to Austro-Hungarian Empire (now Czechia) in the Neanderthal article. I had actually fiddled a bit on how to express this, and your solution seems a good one. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done (Belgium was part of the Netherlands) Nicolas Perrault (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, good luck! Nicolas Perrault (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

John Clarence Butler
Thank you for taking the time to help improve Ens. Butler's page. However, that hardly excuses the edit summary you left:

(cur | prev) 14:58, June 23, 2017‎ Trekphiler (talk | contribs)‎. . (5,128 bytes) (-229)‎. . (Wrong Capitals Crusade, del inapt lead photo & over-colloquial "flattop", & Navy Cross citation puffery (which it always is...)) (undo | thank)

The first two items you listed were appropriate, but the last two were more like weekly news rag's editor's opinion, totally inappropiate and egregious, insulting to those that served on flattops. As for the bit about puffery... You need to keep those types of comments to yourself, sir. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect professional behavior. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 02:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right, you're not going to get an apology. Looking at this edit, the language in that quote was puffery, whatever the source, & if I'm going to delete a quote, I'm going to say why. If the reason offends you... TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 02:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have known better. Seems like too much of Wikipedia is about the lack of good manners and unnecessary insults. The bit about puffery is just that, bad manners. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @ — Myk Streja Read the quote again. That's purple prose. The tone is breathless adoration. That makes it puffery. How my calling it that is, in any fashion, an insult to you is a mystery to me. Or do you mean you wrote the piece I'm calling puffery, & you don't like it?  TREKphiler  <font face="cursive" color="#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura 04:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The insult is to the men and women who have served in the US military, and especially to those who have received the Navy Cross. I am more embarassed by the insult you offer with your thoughtless summary. Puffery is a pejorative. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 04:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The insult is to the men and women who have served" Nonsense. The insult is to the writer of the quote, & if you can't tell the difference, you've got no business chastising me on it. <font face="cursive" color="#9400D3">TREKphiler  <font face="cursive" color="#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura 04:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Help!
I noticed the rankings were off on this page as well. Would you be able to fix them? Thank you! Dolotta (talk) 23:20, 29 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)

Dazzle
Hi, hmm, sorry to have started a hare running here. We have here, I think, a simple matter of English understatement. When an educated Englishman in 1915 says "not so much to cause ..., but to mislead ..." he means "The purpose was to mislead, not to cause". Of course I'm as aware as you are that we only have the literal string of words to go on. I think "primarily" will do fine for the summary as it doesn't imply 100% one side. I'd like to use the entire quote in the main text, but another editor insisted it wasn't relevant, a curious opinion given that the quote is straight from the horse's mouth. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Death rays
I think I've addressed your CN on the CH page. Specifically, Jones p 50 relates the story in some depth. I have reworded the lede to make the statement more clear. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Wanted you to be aware of this. Hope you're well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hot Rod
Hi Trekphiler,

Is there a particular part of what I changed that you think is incorrect? Most of my editing was just for grammar, and clarity - did I misinterpret something? The movie is common knowledge. And this article is stuffed full of undocumented information.

Thanks. Peacedance (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Taranto
So it seems that you are the original author of the troublesome phrase. I was just trying to see how long it had been there when I noticed the author. Is it a phrase you regularly use? CalzGuy (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something in the context? Is it necessary to have that qualification in the sentence? Does it add clarity? Given it's not a phrase I'm familiar with I am happy to accept a reasonable explanation. CalzGuy (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My objection is simply that I have never come across the phrase "on X's strength" before and didn't understand what it meant in that context. Additionally I feel that it is not a phrase in common parlance and that therefore others reading the page might also be confused. From that point, I make a judgement on how that situation could be ameliorated. Firstly I would want to maintain the essential intent of the original paragraph, but while making the section easily understandable to a wide range of readers.
 * Explaining to me what the phrase means (and we are not quite there yet, but close) just solves the problem of my understanding. It doesn't address the issue of other readers. So my little Google reasearch doesn't throw up very much common usage, so I am inclined to the belief that others will still have problems. There are obviously a bunch of editors who feel it shouldn't be changed. I don't really understand their position. We haven't seen any evidence that the phrase is commonly used. If I can be pointed to its use in either MSM or relatively modern literature, that would be enough for me. Without that, I'm inclined towards finding a compromise form of words. But to do that, I need to understand the niceties to the phrase, which I am struggling with at present.
 * The dictionary definition on the talk page defines the word as a mass noun which is an abstract property or quality of something. So "the strength of the force". But the current usage seems to be as a collective noun - " on Cunningham's strength ". That's why I have difficulty with that dictionary definition. I am not suggesting that this phraseology is never used, but rather that it's use may not be so widespread as to be accessible to the ordinary reader. I accept that to someone with the experience and knowledge you undoubtedly possess it may seem commonplace. But perhaps there might be a simpler construct that maintains the original intent, while allowing those without your knowledge to understand the section more easily. CalzGuy (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your lengthy reply on my talk. It is helping understand the nuances of your intent. But I think a reply inline with yours will assist with understanding so I will reply there, if thats ok. CalzGuy (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Torpedo
My edit was very much correct and not vandalism. Since "mk" is pronounced "em-kay", the indefinite article in front of it takes the form "an". Happy? 193.242.214.225 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * mk means, and is said "mark" in this case, so "an" is not correct. (<font color="Green">Hohum <font color="Red">@ ) 14:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hohum's right, it's Mark 46, & the only people who pronounce it as letters are ones who don't know what they're talking about. Are we done, now?  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  15:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

DNFT
It might be time to just ignore him for awhile. If he reverts you, don't revert back, and just leave it be. - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 30 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)

WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Really?
Really? That's pretty sad. Drmies (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Air superiority important to article
I have made a partial undo in order to agree with User:Monroe that the citations should be added and to add 2 cites there for air superiority as not previously in the FA for Midway. Its an important issue currently not covered in the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:18, 6 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)

Merge rationale?
Can you start the talk page discussion for merging motorcycle land speed record? I can't imagine why we would want to do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:02, 9 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)

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)

Ford Model T
Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up that your recent edit on Ford Model T created a broken citation. I'd fix it myself, but couldn't tell whether you'd meant to keep that reference(s) or remove it entirely. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies ..
My apologies for reverting you on Ford Model T, but you inadvertently changed the name in the infobox to "666devil", and that triggered my anti-vandalism circuits before I saw your username. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not ideal naming within Template:Infobox engine
As you had already mentioned on the WikiProject Automobiles Talk page in August the usage of 'Combustion chamber' in the header is not suitable. It's just one problem with the 'Template:Infobox engine' that I feel could easily be resolved. As nobody responded to you, perhaps because of the headline, I have made a new attempt at having a discussion. Maybe you are interested in taking part. regards 2A02:2028:614:6B01:F0BB:F4FE:4D47:3ACC (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Roman Kroitor
Just a note that I removed the fact tag from the lead of Roman Kroitor, as the Force claim is referenced directly below in Roman_Kroitor, per WP:CITELEAD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Balao-class and Tench-class cancellations
Before we get into an edit war, here is the reasoning behind my edit. The fundamental problem with the WWII submarine cancellations is that references differ as to which boats were Balao-class and which boats were Tench-class. My initial count was inaccurate; 62 Balao and 51 Tench class were cancelled according to the source. The source goes on to list the proposed SS-551 class, of which twelve were cancelled. I am trying to incorporate that class into the Tench-class article, as it was little more than a sketch design, and several sources list SS-551 to SS-562 as Tench-class. RobDuch (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Trekphiler, I'm Comrade John from other language Wikipedia , The background behind RobDuch's edit , you can check our discussion in his user talk section Click Here. It's seems Gato , Balao and Tench class submarine have some wrong point in article and their template , i guess that's the reason why people don't do the "ship of the class" list section , cause they don't really know the true number of them. Whatever it is , please check our discussion , thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hartnett_(car)
Hello Trekphiler. I am the person who originally wrote much of this article.

The sentence that has been changed by you from:

"The Hartnett Motor Company was announced in a presentation made by Laurence Hartnett to Australian Prime Minister Ben Chifley on 7 February 1949." to "The Hartnett Motor Company was announced by Hartnett on 7 February 1949."

was written that way to make clear that Australian Prime Minister Ben Chifley was at the launch of the company with all that his presence would imply to the public etc regarding his support for the project. This is reasonably important because it was Chifley's personal decision later not to support the project!

I am not sure that this is of major importance (not trying to be political) but thought I should point it out.

Regards, Brycewhite (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (on my talk page). Yes I agree it needs to be re-written. I expect a Chifley expert will get to it one day. Thanks for helping to make the article more readable. Brycewhite (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Hazard Powder Company you included material from the article Hazardville, Connecticut. That's okay, but you have to give attribution, as it is a requirement of our CC-by-SA license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying or moving material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Beauty and the Bull
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Trekphiler, thanks for creating Beauty and the Bull!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. PLease add sources, imdb is specifically banned at WP:RS

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Beauty and the Bull for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beauty and the Bull is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Beauty and the Bull until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. South Nashua (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sally ship!
Hello Trek, I hope you are well: I found this, and thought it might interest you, seeing as we'd talked about it a while ago, here (two years ago, now! Aaghh!): It's an account in Blair's Hitler's Uboat War (vol 1, p154) regarding U-47 during the Norwegian campaign. After a failed attack in Vaagt fjord, Prien in U-47 "ran aground and stuck fast on an uncharted sandbar, well within range of the (British) cruisers guns". In an effort to get free, "Prien backed the diesels at emergency turns and blew the forward ballast tanks dry. When that failed... he ordered all available men topside to 'sally ship'. They ran madly back and forth on the deck, rocking the boat. Finally U-47 broke free" and they escaped. So maybe that's why it seemed familiar when we discussed it. I also found this quite interesting website, which has this for 'sally ship', which describes much the same thing. Anyway, it's just a passing thought: Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Its probably no coincidence that a jerk is also a leathery piece of beef, impervious to change, tough to get your teeth into and difficult to swallow: But (as you say) there are still plenty of people here with a good attitude; and most days it is still fun. And at the end of the day, this is a hobby! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Remember the old school motto: “Noli Illegitimi carborundum!” Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries; vent away! And if I can help in any other way, give me a shout! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Cleveland? Sorry, no..(I'm assuming you don't mean this one); do you need some laundry picking up?
 * I'm intrigued by this, though... is this an elaborate joke, or something? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleveland
Sorry for not replying before; I was having a bit of a breather. I must have got the wrong end of the stick on the BatB thing: Anyway, I hope it stays; as you say, its an unusual (maybe unique!) story. As for Cleveland, have you left a request at Commons? Or on the relevant project pages? Cleveland (this Cleveland) has got one of its own, believe it or not; it's possible someone reads it from time to time :). How about Flickr? Aren't Flickr images fair game free of copyright? Anyway, good luck with it; regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the drink! Merry Christmas! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-radius: 32px; border-color:#009600; background: #FFFBC4; border-width:8px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:210px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * TYVM. Same back!  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  18:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wallace Douglas
The fact that a Canadian actor's father was from Kimberley in South Africa does add to the makeup/character of this man, and so is of interest and relevance. Shipsview (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a frequent refrain on pages where there's not much to say about the person himself: add anything you can find about father, mother, uncle, brothers & sisters, cousins... If Douglas had grown up in South Africa, I might agree. He didn't. If he'd spent any appreciable amount of time there, I might agree. He didn't. Demonstrate an influence, I might agree. You haven't.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What does your refrain any time you're ready, Uhura mean?Shipsview (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I figure you're smart enough to figure it out, so take a look at the username & do the math.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  23:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to set phasers To stun - you already got me. If Uhura can have a Wikipedia page, one would think that the details on another entry's parents date and place of birth might merit inclusion. I guess it is all a question of priorities.

Trekkies probably do not celebrate Hogmanay, but have a good one. Shipsview (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Box-office charts
I would like to put our relationship on a more congenial footing. I actually agree with you that these charts have serious problems that render them unfit for purpose, and if you want to fix that then we need to get on the same page. I am sorry if you felt I spoke to you in an arrogant way, it was not my intention to patronise you, if you feel that is what I have done. That said explaining things over the internet when you do not know anything about the other perosn's background is difficult because you invariably overshoot or over-explain (and risk either the other person not understanding you or feeling like you have treated them like an idiot).

There are two dominating issues here, which we need to get on top of:
 * Metrics
 * The metrics issue is crucial. Historical rankings (we are mainly talking Variety here) used gross rentals (and unhelpfully called it the box-office gross), while all modern day trackers (Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, modern-day Variety) use the real box-office gross. Part of the problem I am encountering in our discussions is that I don't know if you appreciate the difference between a box-office gross and gross rental. The best analogy I can think of is the difference between metric and imperial units. Again, I don't want to come across as patronising but the difference is important. You can find a good explanation of the difference at https://books.google.com/books?id=19mmZIqaqhgC&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false. It is only a paragraph and worth reading.
 * Lifetime/first-run grosses
 * Differentiating between lifetime and first-run grosses is complicated. A lifetime and first-run gross will be identical if the film has never been re-released. In this case we can just use the lifetime gross documented at Box Office Mojo or The-Numbers if we are sure there hasn't been a reissue. Sometimes, Box Office Mojo will itemise releases, as can be seen at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=junglebook.htm for The Jungle Book, which is great for our purposes. That said you need to double check the releases Box Office Mojo has documented because they are missing a lot for older films.

However, using modern sources to construct historical rankings is deeply flawed IMO, and personally I think it would better to use Variety's historical gross rental charts. Even this can be difficult though because Variety would attribute the film to the year it did its most business in, rather than the year of release (which would see Christmas releases ranked in the following year's rankings). If you agree with this view and would like to overhaul the box-office charts then we could work on it collaboratively i.e. track down the old Variety charts and add them to the articles. It all depends on how much time you want to give over to resolving the issue really. Anyway, as far as you and I go I am tired of the arguing, it goes too much against my personality. I have decided not to revert you any more on the articles even if I think you are confusing different types of data. Your recent changes didn't fix these charts, and truth is my reverts didn't either! All either of us have done on these charts is waste our time so far. They are a mess regardless and I have decided I am only going to spend any more time on them if there is a proper plan of action to track down the the proper historical rankings. I have added your talk page to my watchlist so let me know if you want to work with me on this. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Outer space"
I've left you a reply here. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide
Maybe the original sentence itself is included in the "general" sense and not directly referring to drag racing, but just the chemical sense. If you can find something pertaining to drag racing to include, be my guest. I may look further, maybe not. Kindest regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this? Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"...your own anti-NRA, anti-gun POV"
Would you mind removing this portion of your comment? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories
While you were right to remove 204.29.68.181's comment, you have to admit that it could be viewed as a moderately entertaining parody of Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. And, yeah, Chuck is awesome. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
 * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Buckler Cars
Hi Trekphiler - I noticed that you have created a stand alone article for Derek Buckler. I suspect that he may not be notable enough for the article so suggest you keep an eye on it and be prepared to cut it back into the article about Buckler Cars if necessary. I hope that doesn't happen, but just in case, as I would hate to loose the information. NealeFamily (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trekphiler - I've added him to my watch list as well. NealeFamily (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Following
Please stop tackling my contributions again. Its less than eight months since you were last obliged to pause operations. Eddaido (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

2008 box office
Hi Trekphiler. I know this has been concern of yours in the past so I was wondering if you would review Talk:2008_in_film and comemnt. Basically the matter regards the first-run gross of The Dark Knight. It had an IMAX reissue in 2009 taking its gross past $1 billion, but Box Office Mojo doesn't track separate IMAX grosses so it combines the 2009 IMAX gross with the 2008 general release gross (this is explained more fully at The Dark Knight (film). I was hoping you could chip in an opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Altered (drag racing)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carol Cox
Hello! Your submission of Carol Cox at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew D. (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

One ping only, Vasily
- BilCat (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thx for the the thought. System's so old, it practically uses cranks, so no good for the task. Specs on Miss July 1989 to follow.  Marco Ramius  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">I hear you pinging  23:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I know it's hard when one person does something stupid, but I got in trouble for trying to fix it. I've been there many times, both on Wikipedia and in other areas of life. And I'm sure I will again, because I react very badly when I'm backed into a corner and someone jumps my case without doing anything about the cause, especially after I've explained what happened and they totally ignore it, and just jump on me even harder. Very frustrating. Even worse, 99 times out of 100, I later realize I went overboard, but it didn't do me any good at the time it was happening, as I think every time it's that one time I totally right. That's the trouble with being older and more experienced: Everyone always expects you to act better. (And as the eldest child, I was always older!) - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the elder, too, & I was always the one getting blamed, whether I started it or not. And I have a notoriously short temper, & a notorious intolerance for stupidity: that's a fairly fatal combination. (I'll let you do the math.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  02:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC) (P.S. I would've used Dallas's CO as my sig, before, but I was too lazy to look it up. ;p )


 * I have a short temper and intolerance for stupidity to, and yeah, it can be fatal. But I'm slowly learning. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dick Landy
Hello! Your submission of Dick Landy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Polynesian (custom car)
Hi, I removed the categories that were overly broad and had subcategories that were better fits. Category:Kustom Kulture, for example, is already a subcategory of Category:DIY culture and Category:Vehicle modification. Trivialist (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Willie Borsch
Hello! Your submission of Willie Borsch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Find bruce (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Golden
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Doug Thorley for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doug Thorley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Doug Thorley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Something I need to say
I don't mean to bother you, but you revered the edit of 2605:e000:2e54:800:9818:b9e6:8cfa:317b on the Seven of Nine page, which I agree with, but you won't get an answer from that user. This person is for some reason reverting edits done by a certain IP address, even if that IP address(s) reverted vandalism, spam, typos, red links and 2605:e000:2e54:800:9818:b9e6:8cfa:317b keeps using different IPs every time. I just wanted you to know this, I'm not trying to make trouble.--108.82.12.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Pacific War's infobox?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific_War.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific_War. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve A Automobile Company
Hello, Trekphiler,

Thanks for creating A Automobile Company! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
Hi Trek, it looks like that dynamic IP who was causing us trouble this week was probably User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI. See User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. I doubt we'll get any apologies for the users who dumped on us at the WPAN though. Oh well, such is life. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:AN Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ajax Motor Vehicle Company for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ajax Motor Vehicle Company is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ajax Motor Vehicle Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SPI
Sockpuppet investigations/Phx138   Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * If you choose to invoke the standard offer six months from now, you're going to have to do a lot for any unblock request to be accepted. First, this is a CU block, and you can only be unblocked if I or another CU consents. Second, besides the blatant violations highlights, you and your sock have edited a very large number of the same articles, which is also problematic regardless of how you characterize each edit. And this is despite the fact that your sock has fewer than 100 edits. Finally, your claimed motive for creating the sock account is in and of itself malicious. Whatever gripes you have against Andy Dingley do not permit you to test his editing patterns with a sock. In a nutshell, you're going to have start accepting responsibility for your misconduct with some credible indication that you will reform.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "you and your sock have edited a very large number of the same articles" Say what? All of one using both accounts. And since when is having, or using, two prohibited, absent intent to violate a block?
 * "your claimed motive for creating the sock account is in and of itself malicious" Really? So I should accept stalking & do nothing about it? I should accept harassment & do nothing?
 * Oh, wait, I forgot. Bbb23 is the same guy who doesn't even want to consider my side in false charges of vandalism. And it's a long tradition of Admins not to care about that where I'm the target, isn't it? You've been looking for an excuse for a year, & now you finally got one, didn't you?
 * Judging by the level of bullshit from you people on civility & fair treatment, good fucking riddence.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  19:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your use of a second account does not fall under any of the legitimate uses listed at WP:SOCKLEGIT and your contribution overlap is extensive. You not being able to comprehend how your abuse of multiple accounts runs contrary to policy will need to be addressed if you request a standard offer appeal in the future. While blocked editors are given some leeway to vent on their talk page, you're edging near the line of what is considered acceptable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

From your own guidelines: "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts "Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. Policy shortcut Nothing there, not anywhere about "don't edit the same page with more than one account", which is what your "extensive overlap" bullshit is about. "This includes, but is not limited to" Meaning you can just make up shit & there's no way to actually know what is & what isn't prohibited. And I'm damn near certain, had I claimed stalking by Andy, he'd have denied it, you'd have believed him, & you'd have blocked me for that, instead. Because you've expressly been looking for an excuse to do it for a year, & you finally got one. And I've been right all along: I had no fucking chance of actually getting fair treatment, at any point in this kangaroo court.
 * "Creating an illusion of support" Nope.
 * "Editing project space" Nope.
 * "Circumventing policies" All of one rv? So, one strike & you're out, huh? After being falsely accused of vandalism, again, & having that "investigation" closed before it started. Which is exactly what I expected.
 * "Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue" Nope.
 * "Evasion of sanctions" Nope
 * "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" Nope.
 * "Avoiding scrutiny: ...to confuse or deceive" Nope.
 * "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts" Nope.
 * "Editing while logged out in order to mislead" Nope.
 * "Misusing a clean start" Nope.
 * "Deceptively seeking positions of community trust" Nope.
 * "Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator" Nope.
 * And, y'know, IDK why I'm wasting my time arguing it, since you hypocritical jerks aren't going to do anything about it.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  22:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see...
 * Secret trials
 * Draconian punishment for single offenses
 * Indefinite sentences
 * Sentences determined at the whim of those in charge
 * "Rehabilitation" at the whim of those in charge
 * People in charge with expressed biases entitled to have a say in punishments of people about whom they express bias
 * Anything not expressly permitted is forbidden
 * Welcome to Nazipedia.
 * Hitler & Stalin would be proud.
 * And I expect you'll rv this as "personal attacks" the moment you see it, too.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  00:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've revoked talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have have occasional interactions with TREKphiler here on Wikipedia for some time, and I've generally respected his efforts to improve the encylopedia. I think that his treatment here has been less than fair, that he has reason to be upset, and that banning him from his own talk page was a gratuitous slap in the face. For whatever it's worth. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles Henry Pugh


The article Charles Henry Pugh has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Wtf...?
Just noticed Tp was blocked. Indef? (For one alternate account? I just saw a guy using 2 alt. accounts in an RfC, and all he got was 30 days.) It seems some emotions may have run high at one point, but surely they've cooled. It's been over a year and half, the guy had 60,000 edits over 15 years... surely he can be unblocked now? At the very least, talk page access should be restored. JMHO - wolf  06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is pretty unlikely that he will ever be unblocked if you ask me. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why's that? - wolf  23:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been a long pattern of not working particularly well with fellow editors. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So you say, but that's not what he was blocked for, he was blocked following an SPI. An editor with that much experience, with no previous incidents of socking noted (in the few and minor entries in their block log), who's been blocked for this long, should at least have their page unlocked should they choose to post an unblock request. Besides, only a community consensus or arbcom can permanently ban an editor. That said, Trekphiler edited several articles that I watch, hence how I noticed he came to be blocked. What's your interest here? - wolf  22:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 41783 and discussion
<div class="user-block" style="background:Gainsboro; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> is in progress closed. Noting block evasion as -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is that cu confirmed? And why the need for utrs at all, with an ltc? Why can't TP be permitted to post an unblock request here on his tp? Surely there's a better way to handle all this? (jafo) - wolf  03:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some people prefer UTRS. Abusive talk page rants that did not address the reasons for the block. I'll tell him you inquired. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. He said as much in the UTRS ticket. Wanted Pete and Jake's Hot Rod Parts back. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We know that in some situations emotions can run hot, but most people eventually cool off. In this case, I would think a couple months shy of a 2 year block would cool just about everyone off. With that kind of time out, plus the seniority, number of edits and other factors, many editors would at least have tp access but, you know better than I and if that how he wants it, then that's that. Anyway, thank you for the reply. I was just curious, but this is the extent of my curiosity. Have a good day - wolf  07:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

. Not a bad POV. Generally, if the tenor of the UTRS ticket is non disruptive, we restore TPA so the unblock discussion can occur on the talk page. Still awaiting his reply. Some discussions are too sensitive for a user talk page, and the user prefers some privacy. G'night. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, well... that's all above my pay grade, but thanks for the insight. You feedback is appreciated. G'nite -  wolf  08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If I were blocked, I'd probably have a poor attitude too. Anything else? Would you like me to consider this as an unblock request? (Hint I'd just refer you to ArbCom (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) and the GAB ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks ). -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 12:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 46037
declined. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of On Parade


The article On Parade has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since June"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donald D23  talk to me  02:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of James Coffey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Coffey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/James Coffey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)