Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
G'day Ranger Steve, I think the statement about the silhouette of the Spitfire being decisive in forming public perception during the BofB is inaccurate anyway; the public seldom had a chance to see and admire the wing's silhouette, particularly when the aircraft were in combat. I believe the real catalyst was more likely to have been Beaverbrook's "Sponser a Spitfire" campaign. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed you removed the failed citation template from the Tsutomu Yamaguchi article. The linked news item contains the sentence:
So despondent was he that he considered, in the event of Japan losing the war, killing his wife and baby son with an overdose of sleeping pills.
It alludes nothing to him contemplating suicide for himself. Or am I missing something here? Regards.-Shahab (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ranger Steve, I see you altered the 'Efficiency Decoration' as part of Robert Henry Cain's medals and decorations. I do not and will not dispute the usage of clear references and evidence, but I still wonder which decoration the second ribbon might be on Cain's tunic at his VC investiture. A picture of it is used in his article. The only decoration he was officially granted that resembles this second ribbon is the Defence Medal. But that wasn't issued until the summer of 1945. Cain, however, spent 12 years in the TA and special reserve before the war, which would make him elligible to wear the ED. But, yes, there are in fact no official records of him being awarded this decoration. Anyway, it was just a thought... Keep up the good work! Greetings from a military history enthousiast! MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.216.20 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Steve, forgot about that! I'm glad you've managed to get an alternative image. The one I obtained isn't good quality (traffic plus a slight blur - I'm convinced my daughter took it from a moving car, though she denies it!) If you couldn't have got anything else it might have done, but I'll get rid of it. All the best. EyeSerenetalk 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll help you with the prose and sourcing, but I won't be able to until about 10 PM central time. You can leave me messages at my talk page or the FAC and I will see them then. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mheart did the copyedit for the Japanese flag article and it was completed today. Is there anything else other than a copyedit that you need for this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. You might be interested in Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Flags and links. Best, --John (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The articles Battle of the Nile and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile have both now passed their respective FAC and FLC, and as many of the points raised in these processes were applicable to both articles I wanted to thank you for your assisance and support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —Ed!(talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
HMAV Ardennes was named after a British river crossing which helped end the Battle of the Bulge.
HMAV Abbeville was named after a minor part of Operation Dynamo.
HMAV Agheila was named after a operation in Libya which included a massive deception by Jasper Maskelyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medcroft (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You supported the 45th Infantry Division's A-class review last fall, but the ACR was closed with no consensus due to a sourcing issue. I have since addressed that issue and have opened a new one. Please do come back to give your input. Thank you! —Ed!(talk) 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I can't be bothered to argue with you about this! I have had to much fiddling and flak from all sorts of people over a very minor article which I started and now wish I hadn't. So I am abandoning my contributions. Just to clarify one matter though - HMAV Agheila was named after the battle of El Agheila which did include an amphibious element. Thank you also for fiddling with the picture of L4128 - did it really need altering from the original? And yes I did serve on HMAV Abbeville (and also HMAV Audemer). HMAV Agheila was the only other Mk 8 LCT left in service at the time (1977) - civilian crew. Medcroft (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
Awarded for not only regularly going the extra mile to advise and assist less experienced editors, but for invariably doing so in a patient, courteous and respectful way. You walk the walk ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if you've already been approached about this, but have you considered standing for coordinatorship in the upcoming elections? The project will be losing quite a few coords this time due to real life commitments, and interest from the membership in standing has been low so far; we're concerned that one reason for this might be that potential candidates are put off because they believe the role is much bigger than it actually is. Hence this personal message - I believe you'd be ideal for the job and can assure you that it's not a drain on time, requires no previous experience in the 'office' areas of Milhist, and doesn't detract from normal editing. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note, and if you're interested you can sign up here by 15 March. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to drop you a note after the promotion and thank you for your reviewing efforts, but you beat me to it. Though I didn't agree with all your comments, your thorough review helped improve the article considerably. Your suggestions about the excavation and salvage helped clarify a lot of the process. If if you feel anything else can be improved, please drop a note at the article talkpage.
Found this on ParaData whilst writing Nigel Poett: http://www.paradata.org.uk/content/theirs-glory-1946. It would also seem that there is a detailed analysis of the making of the film in After the Battle issue 58. I'll try and find out where we could get that from. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice 1! Ill wipe that note considering its available in a few places still :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Ranger Steve, I think I've done some addressing of your issue of coverage for the Yamato FAC. I've added some stuff from the main class page. Let me know if that's sufficient. If it isn't, I'll keep looking. Cam (Chat) 02:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! Good Luck on your time as Coordinator! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you during this term. – Joe N 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve,
If you are keen on being a co-ord on the British task force, I don't mind if you bump me off and move yourself across. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You can have WWII, I just took it because I know so little about the other areas. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve
OK, i think there is only a few little things left to add or tweak in the Villers-Bocage article; i know you took a look over it before for CE but we have had a bit of a revamp since then. Could you do a sweep over it so we can start moving towards FA status?
Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As promised at WT:MHCOORD, here is my critique of your first close of an ACR (I'll go through in the order I do things when closing reviews):
{{ArticleHistory}}
and the oldid parameter seems to have already been answered at the coordinator's talk page. What I do is have the article itself open in one tab and click "history" and then go to the most recent version and click on the date. Then the URL of that version of the article will have oldid=xxxxxxxxxxOverall, for your first time and with a set of instructions that definitely is not easy to fully understand (which is why I do intend to write an article for the Academy on exactly how I close ACRs and archive PRs this summer) you did a good job. If you have any questions or need some help, do not hesitate to ask. -MBK004 06:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
I just realized that there was a massive problem with the nomination page for our ACMs, and I tracked it down to this. In the future, please allow me to handle this aspect of the A-class promotion process since it is going to take me the better part of an hour to clean this disaster up. -MBK004 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I know you're probably sick of dealing with the Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank vessels, but could you do me a huge favour? I'm under the impression that you have access to a copy of Habesch's The Army's Navy...if so, would you be willing to verify the ship list table's information on Ardennes and Antwerp (cited to p. 162) for me? This information was added and/or cited by what I think may be single-purpose accounts. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 06:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
:D Want me to attribute you? And would you know how to get it to be the width of the other box? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That was unexpected, but very much appreciated. Thanks very much! EyeSerenetalk 07:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understood your question, if I got it wrong, please ask again.--SPhilbrickT 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Back over at the noticeboard. I'm trying to establish definitive consensus on this issue so anyone citing a sign doesn't get challenged later. If you could go back to the noticeboard, to my section, and firmly state your opinion, I think that would help with consensus. I'm dealing with a possible challenge to a cited sign in a FAC right now. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started the review of this, not much to do. Talk:68-pounder 95 cwt/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 68-pounder 95 cwt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to note Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Is a noticeboard a reliable source.3F. Consensus is that signs from known and credible publishers are considered reliable enough to be used in Featured Articles. If you ever have a FAC that cites a sign, you may want to keep this link handy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Before we get into an edit war, I would like you to consider the following : Concerned guns were often described, if appropriate typesetting was available, in terms of the new dimension over the old dimension, which I can't reproduce here. Hence 80 over 68 -pr. R.M.L. 5 tons. If the appropriate typesetting was not available, that was expressed simply as 80-pr of 5 tons. Have a look at the diagram which accompanies RML 64 pounder 71 cwt gun denoting a conversion from 8 inch to 64-pounder standard. There was no such thing as 68-pr of 5 tons and I've never seen mention of such a thing. Hence your assertion is inaccurate, and misstates what the naming standards of the day actually were. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your hard work on the 'Mystery Rifle' Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately the attitude on display is par for the course, but hopefully your timely reminder will have some positive effect. EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the links that were wrong so they are now sensible. But rather than delete henge monument, I now think it and the other pages should all be merged into henge, i.e. henge enclosure, henge monument and hengiform monument should all be merged into henge. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I put that there as a joke m8 :¬)
If you read the DOD definition of Tactical Diversion it says "see Diversion"
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I realised that the definitions of terms such as operational objective and others may need refs and sources. I have added some to the Tactical victory article.
Before continuing can you have a quick look and make sure I have not messed it up.
I am asking you to do this in readiness for letting others know I am trying to clean up these articles and posting on the Milhist pages.
I realsie that this is not a good time to start hacking at the articles after the recent incident but it does strike me that there are definite needs such as the lack of sources - this one in particular as it only has one ref - a book on naval operations.
thanks
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I just spoke to the head of research at English Heritage
He advises me that they are in the process of reddefining thier terms and have come to the same conclusions we did
They are dispensing witht the word monument due to the reasons I stated - confusion over the "raising a thing as a monument" and "a site which we are treating as a monument" (which includes village sites etc.)
He told me that their definitions are used by archaeologists as well.
Their new definitions will be:
He says the team that is dealing with the new definitions should have a new set out in the next month or two. THey will be dropping "monument" from all their classifications.
He told me that the most recent books are
Seems like we got it right then lol
Chaosdruid (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Please go to the article allied warcrimes during ww2 and check out the dicussion regarding POWs, and then read how enigma summarized this on milhist. Then u will finally see where the problem is. Please take the time. Blablaaa (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
you want me to respond or was it kinda open letter ?Blablaaa (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey dude. I have a battered copy of 'The Arnhem Report: The Story Behind The Bridge Too Far' by Iain Johnstone next to me that I don't have a use for. It was written by Johnstone when he was a journalist who covered the making of the film. It's not just a puff piece, it looks at the difficulties caused by the stars, what they thought about the film, the budget problems and the astronomical salaries. It also covers the filming in detail, the veterans brought in to play extras etc. If you're interested in it, it's yours. Skinny87 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have put some more sources into the talk page at Charnwood.
I think that they offer more light on the subject and wondered if you feel they should be included. It may mean that some more material would be added to the article or that they can be used as refs. I am not sure as to which of those it should be though.
I will also point this out to Eyeserene and Enigma. (Blaaa is already aware so I don't need to point it out to him)
Chaosdruid (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking the time to do that Steve. As a technical point you won't now be able to certify, but I'm sure you're aware of that (and we have the required two sigs anyway). The only thing still missing is a diff or two that shows you tried to resolve the dispute in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section, but I can do that if you like. EyeSerenetalk 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with that ! I used to be an avid cyclist but had to give up after I developed arthritis. I miss it so much - gf and I years ago took a cycling holiday round southern tip of Eire - avg 60 miles a day and absolutely loved it. One of my best holidays...Chaosdruid (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd tell you another henge as been discovered in Hertfordshire at a place called Norton at Stapleton's Field near Letchworth. I'll prob create an article soon although there seems little to go on at the mo. Simply south (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
How's the break going? I trust you're not too saddle-sore :) EyeSerenetalk 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Will you be re-standing as a coordinator? I haven't seen you fill in your standing for reelection tab at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2010, and given that we still have room for a few more candidates to be elected/reelected I was curious to know if you were going to stand again. I would personally be very happy to welcome you back, but if you would prefer not to stand again I can certainly understand that. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well after all that ... I voted after all. It was a hard call, I'm normally not comfortable voting in an election I'm running in, but then I saw the vote comments and it looked like "party time", which I'd like to see more of around Wikipedia. The natural place to draw the line for me was: if I'm bumping into someone all the time (or used to, in the case of Dana), I voted ... but that means that there are many great candidates, including you, I didn't vote for, and I'm sorry about that. Maybe I can help you with articles or something. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help! It is extremely appreciated! ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me tell you something, with the exception of 1800-1899 and 1900-1944, I spent a lot of time reformatting the lists (I'll do the last ones soon). To have a group of people just show up and redo my work is disgusting. B-Machine (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that I've finished this article. It might be time to work on the individual ship articles together and get them up to GA. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
How do I delete an article? I forgot the process. Respond on my talk page. B-Machine (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
In gratitude of your service as coordinator for the Military history Project from March 2010 to September 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Rather than digress, on the project page. I've looked through Fletcher's Universal Tank though it describes the development of Centaur relative to Cromwell and Cavalier no luck on plans. It does have a photo of Hunter] (there's other pictures of Hunter in the IWM collection) the subject of the ww2 drawing link. There's no good diagrams of Centaur on www.the-blueprints.com but there are several of Cromwell. Might I ask what you are doing with the plans? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies talk 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
I've explained the reasons for my edits on the Talk Page. Me and Jacky don't seem to be able to "come to a consensus" - why is his version regarded as any more valid than mine? My edits were made in good faith, he reverted. I explained my reasons, he contradicted me, and continues to delete sourced material. Why are you rebuking me alone? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead should be a brief summary of the subject. To have the lead say he's swiss right next to the infobox which states "born in austria" is confusing. Do I really need to read the entire article to discover that he might've been born in Austria but moved to Switzerland? Wacky. Undoing a good faith edit like mine, meant to clarify this, is inappropriate and an edit war basically. --Hutcher (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
At the 1992 Los Angeles riots article, an IP address user vandalized the article. I tried reverting them, but I could only revert one. Is there any way to revert them all? B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
I've mass-reverted back to the last known good version. Apologies for the delay (I took a week off) EyeSerenetalk 09:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe Ledennierhomme has returned to Expédition d'Irlande. At any rate, an ip keeps trying to revert to his preferred version of the article. I've reverted several times, but I don't know if you'd be interested in discussing the issue on the article talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please refrain from making edits which make the article worse. Please give me your rationale for the edits you made. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen WP:EDITORIAL? Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.
Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc...
Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.