Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{Cref}} and {{Cnote}} to produce a separate listing of commentary footnotes, although it may not worth it in this case - your explanatory/commentary footnotes are so few that it might be simpler to incorporate that information directly into the text. If you decide to use those templates, and need some help, let me know. Carom (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is coming along nicely - good work! Carom (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cam!

Things got a bit complicated by you sharing SGGH's range. For simplicity and ease of use, it's one user per range! I've sorted it out, I think, by shuffling things round a bit and moving the articles you've worked on to a new range (one below the shared one), which is where you should pick up work :) I don't think anything has been broken but if it has, just let me know. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: You'll need to do 1-30 on the new range, then pick up again at 140 onwards. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No harm done :) Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary when you tied me was funny. This is not a race, and I'm not in this to win 1st place. I may stop when I get to 400, or I may go to 600. Keep up the good work, and you may just get the golden wiki for the most. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget about counts, see WP:ITIS. The thing that matters is constructive contributions whether it be writing articles, assessments, maintenance, or admin-type stuff. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I've noted that you are looking to attempt to get this article which you have put allot of work into bumped up the ratings ladder.

Just a little advice I think you should split your Notes and References section into tow ala other articles i.e. Second Battle of El Alamein or Operation Brevity. That way one can show the full information for the source information and the footnote section can be used to cite what pages the information has came from.

Well ciao--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! even you are not behind anyone! keep it up! --SMS ^Talk 06:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you kept this as B class? The article has no references whatsoever. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't have anything to do with the starting of this drive. It appears someone mainly copied and pasted the old drive page, so that might have led you to think I started it. I haven't been editing Wikipedia enough lately to get involved in an assessment drive, so your questions will have to be answered by someone else. In addition, I'm starting to question the usefulness of the assessment system, so I wouldn't be a great person to lead the drive. Good luck, Psychless 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your much appreciated reviews of military history articles, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the assessment "Coverage and Accuracy" is listed as "no." Is there some major error or lack of information that requires correction or addition? I understand about needing in-text citations and am planning to do this along with a few updates based on Cooper-Wiele's recent study of the action, but if there are some major problems with the article's content (or lack of it) I would like to address them as well. I expanded it from stub level and therefore recuse myself from assessing it directly. Thanks for the assessment. Red Harvest (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; there was an unclosed ref tag that was swallowing up part of the text (including the section break) into a footnote. Kirill 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Cam, good to hear from you! I'll be very happy to look over the article for you, although it may be a few days until I get to it as I'm in the last frantic stages of a major project that's due to end on the 10th. If I haven't posted anything by the end of the week, feel free to give me a kick! Looking forward to catching up with your work - all the best, EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've had a quick read-through, and I noticed the article's already up for GA review. Since we last spoke I've become fairly heavily involved at WP:WPGA, and if you like I can take on the review rather than just making suggestions (if no-one else picks it up first!). I don't believe there's any COI involved; it was quite a while ago I last looked at it, my edits were minor, and you've overhauled it significantly since then. If you'd prefer though I'm quite happy to just help out with a final pre-GA polish - your call ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tagged the article as 'under review' at WP:GAN and on the talk-page template. I'll post a detailed review within the next day or so, and we can take it from there. EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to understand your reasoning behind the changes in assessments of aircraft articles of the Bristol Beaufighter, Brewster Buffalo and Bristol Blenheim to "start". See examples of start articles. FWIW, the example of a "start" article is 1st Battalion 2nd Marines. Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Good enough, I did change your initial assessments but your reasoning is sound and I will change back the category. FWWI Bzuk (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi Cam. I've now reviewed the above article, and placed its GA assessment on hold pending some issues being addressed. Most of them are pretty minor, but there are some copyright issues with some of the images that need addressing fairly urgently. I'll keep checking back there, but if you need any help or advice, please get in touch. I'm happy to work with you to get the article through GA - GA reviews are a collaborative process, and I'll do whatever I can to help out. Don't be discouraged by my comments; I'm sure you understand why Wikipedia has to take copyright so seriously... and everything's solvable! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. One minor point on review wikiquette - normally it's best to leave striking out the issues on the review to the reviewer, as it confirms that we feel they have been satisfactorily addressed. It also makes things easier to track when we revisit the article. It's no big deal though! EyeSerene^talk 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs! I'll stick the map on my 'to-do' list, and have a crack at it tonight. Thanks for the RfA congratulations too! EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your great work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your excellent work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the coordinators, for your oustanding work assessing B-class military history articles, you are hereby awarded the Military history WikiProject WikiChevrons. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

		Military History WikiProject Spring 2008
		By order of the Coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, for your exemplary work in BCAD, You are awarded this Golden Wiki. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! for the Golden Wiki. --SMS ^Talk 02:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure, Cam. Your three-row display looks so much better than two that I've nicked the idea myself :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - all that shiny stuff! Congratulations!

My map isn't that amazing, to be honest. It doesn't help that many of the details on the counterattacks map are obscured or illegible, but I'll finish things off and see how it looks. I've used standard unit symbols (per here) rather than the tank pictures on the current map; the 503 Pz Btn is obviously heavy tanks, but do you know what size Sterz, Zollhofer and Meyer's units were? I'm also assuming they should be represented as armoured rather than mechanised formations... If you aren't sure, no problem - I'll leave the unit size indicators blank or more likely find another way of showing it on the map.

Hopefully I'll get things finished up over the next few days, then I'll upload and post the link here rather than replace the current map. Apologies it's taking a while - I've been landed at very short notice with delivering a two-week electronics course at work (starting next Monday in fact!), and at present I have no notes, no room and no materials... shouldn't have put 'flexible' and 'works well under pressure' on my CV :P It's all good fun ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I had some time tonight, so finished things up. If you need any changes, let me know ;) EyeSerene^talk 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad that's OK! I used Inkscape for that one, then trimmed and converted it to PNG with GIMP. It would have been better keeping it as an SVG, but all the layers were different sizes and I couldn't find a way to clip them (though I'm sure there is!) EyeSerene^talk 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update Just to let you know I haven't forgotten about anything. I'll hopefully get the second map done in a day or two (and don't worry about the GA hold!) EyeSerene^talk 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Further update Unfortunately, on top of everything else, my laptop died on me last week & naturally I hadn't backed anything up recently... :( If you like, I can pass the GA assessment now on the understanding that as soon as the replacement map is finished it will be inserted into the article? It might save keeping both you and the article in limbo while I work on Operation Spring Mk II. Let me know what you want to do! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cam, thanks very much for the Peer Review for Operation Varsity, I'm very greatful. I was wondering if you could help me create a better structure for the article. I currently have Background - The Battle - Aftermath, which I guess is an okay basic structure, but I know it could be much better. I'm just not sure what a good and effective structure would be. Any help you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An addendum - You said that I should place all the quotes in the text within quote boxes. Now, I've done that with one quote, but there are quite a few quotes from historians. I don't think they can all be placed in quote boxes, as it would look odd. What should I do instead? Thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be really greatful if you could lay out the article sections as you so kindly stated in your comment on my talk page, if you have the time. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

Thank you very much for the barnstar. They are always very welcome, and very encouraging. It was much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I meant to mention this yesterday but other pressurss pushed the idea aside. User:Kirill Lokshin must share some of the praise for the drives. He did the backroom work preparing the files for worklists and so forth. If you could find time to give him a barnstar, I'm sure he'd appreciate it greatly. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill 17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I;ve taken all of your ideas into account in the past week or so, and I was hoping you might cast an eye over the Operation Varsity article when you have a moment and re-evaluating it. The only thing you should bear in mind if you would be so kind as to do so is that the Imperial War Museum has lost its online collections website as it failed to re-register it, and as such I can;t get any verifiable photos of the Operation until it comes back online. Many thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. One more thing - how would I request a review to see if the article qualifies for B-Class, ir possibly even GA? Skinny87 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could find a few minutes to review the article for B-Class status, I'd really be greatful. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on Battle of Verrières Ridge. Following your excellent response to the suggestions provided, I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get one of these:

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Battle of Verrières Ridge}} into the page code.

Great job, and I'll get that map finished asap! Well done! EyeSerene^talk 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations as well! You deserve it, it's a fantastic article! Skinny87 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

...very much for the barnstar! Unexpected, and much appreciated! :D EyeSerene^talk 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, and thank you for your participation in the wiki-adoption project. Just wanted to drop you reminder to change the dated adoptme's to adoptoffer's when you offer adoption to folks. For example, [1]. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You left a message on my guestbook page, saying how good young editors are, and look at the abuse we get.

"Instead of taking responsibility for your sabotage of value, you like to use threats, don't you? Now grow up, kid,m this encyclopedia is not your play ground, it is used by real people to gain knowledge. If you can't understand that wait untiol you mature a little, and come back to this community. It is not aboput your technical prowess but about knowledge. If you want to refer this discussion to higher authority (administrator or Jimmy Wales) buy all means, let see who is right about your disragrd for basic etiquette and your careless work on the Business War Games site. If you are an administrator, let's see if we can take this privilege away from you. You are a menace to this adult encycolpedia."

Pretty ridiculous, don't you think. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those were pretty vicious. I just get quite tired of the people that do not think we are capable of the two things you mentioned. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)