Hi,

I was going to put the answers where you asked the questions, but I would probably get ripped apart (justifiably, if I'm wrong). I was about to delete what I wrote and then decided that if nobody else responds the following stuff may be a little useful.

OK some other basic questions

Hopefully this isn't common knowledge.
1) How do the detectors that can be set up at either slit work?

They work by causing some change that persists and can be observed. In order for such a change to be produced, a photon has to be absorbed, an electron is moved up in orbit, a chemical or other change is caused, and the electron falls to a lower orbit, emitting a photon. It's not the same photon, and it is emitted from the detector in one slit or the other, so no interference can result.

2) What happens if you have 3 slits in a line? in a triangle shape? unevenly spaced? what if they are round pinholes rather than slits? I've never seen these variations mentioned. I assume that a different pattern appears on the screen for each arrangement of slits/holes.

If you have a laser pointer and a small sewing needle you could easily do the three pinhole experiment yourself.

3) Water waves sent through small gaps make a moving pattern on a screen as the waves move. Does the electron/photon pattern vary over time, or is it static? I don't remember from class, it's been a while!

I think this point is one where the model or the analogy breaks down. The crests of water waves move up and down as the waves move toward the far wall. Light waves are not exactly analogous to water waves. Except for polarized light, the "peaks" of light waves could be going in any direction in a circle--assuming that they could be seen. But each photon is observed only as a consequence of a definite amount of energy being delivered to some object in the path of the light. For instance, a sensitive molecule (or molecules) in photographic film will be changed in chemical structure by the delivery of energy. So it's a little like looking at the entry wound of an arrowhead and expecting to see a record of which part of the arrowhead hit first. All you actually have is a hole. In other words, we cannot hope to observe the wave nature of light by looking at direct manifestations analogous to different water levels contacting a wall. We have to do things like looking at Newton's rings and theorizing from there.

If you are looking at a burst of light from, e.g., a laser whose switch was flicked for a short interval of time, then you are looking at a huge number of impacts. If things are slowed down by making the experimental apparatus emit only an electron or a photon at a time, then the pattern slowly builds up. (One of the footnoted sites has a good series of pictures of the actual build-up of such a pattern over time.)

4) If you gradually increase the separation of the slits, does there come a time where the photons/electrons no longer pass through both? Does each particle pass through both anyway? If not, then how, if you send them through 1 at a time, does a particle which passes through 1 slit only know the other slit is there?

I think the more basic question is why a photon goes through one slit or the other in the first place. Ordinary world experience would suggest that most of the light directed by a laser or other source of photons or electrons should hit the area surrounding the slits and be absorbed or reflected. Simple observation of a homemade two-slit experiment using a pointer laser reveals that the screen that holds the two slits is brightly illuminated. There is no magical concentration of the laser light solely on the two slits. So if only one electron is being emitted at a time, then one would anticipate that many of them would be absorbed or reflected in the same way. But until an electron or a photon actually interacts with something there is no actual location for that entity. It has a probabilistic location, i.e., a curve that predicts its likelihood of coming into interaction with the physical apparatus at various positions. So there must be a certain probabilistic expression that predicts equal opportunities for manifestation at the locations of the two slits if a certain photon or electron encountered a target there. A laster that is designed to approximate a point source and send photons in a narrow beam toward a distant target would presumably give its photons high probabilities for hitting the exact center of the apparatus between the two slits. Depending on the actual probabilities of the "manifestation" of a photon on a screen at various distances from the center of the target, one would expect that, in general, the lowest probabilities of impact would be at the greatest distance from the target center. If I've got all of the above correct, then it ought to explain how the wider the separation of slits the less the chance of transmits an electron or photon.

I dont know whether the math favors any particular slit distances.

5) If detectors on both slits detect 1 photon, I assume they slow it down but don't stop it, which makes it not coherant with say, another photon sent through the other slit at the same time? But the article says that the light doesn't have to be coherent for the diffraction pattern to show up.??

One of the problems in thinking about this stuff is that sometimes people are looking at (i.e., imagining that they are looking at) one or two photons, and sometimes they are imagining that they are looking at continuous streams of photons. In the real world people are looking at darkened photographic film, sensitive electronic sensors, or bands of light reflected from a white screen.

It is tempting to say that the detectors slow "it" down, but that is not actually what is going on. (Heisenberg actually says this with much more economy than I could ever muster. If I had a photographic memory I could probably find his words quickly.) In a double-slit experiment with open slits, a photon is emitted at one end and a physical interaction occurs at the detector. That sequence counts as one event. We can be reasonably sure that we know where the photon came from because we can test our apparatus by leaving it unpowered for a long time and seeing no light flashes on the detector screen. (We become convinced there are no light leaks or other possible sources of light.) Then when we supply current to the emitter for a very short time we get a flash very shortly thereafter. Between times there is nothing to detect. If we put a detector in the middle somewhere and a flash occurs there, then we have, in effect, just moved the detector screen closer to the source. If we put detector devices in the double slits, we will get a flash somewhere on the central wall. The high probability places for hits are at the center where the two slits are. If we get a flash in one of the detector elements tht we've placed in the two slits, then we have just observed an event--from emitter to detector. Then, if we have used a detector device that does not use all of the energy delivered by the photon, a new event occurs. To the casual observer it looks like the same event, but in fact a new photon is sent off by the detector screen. Since energy has been used to effect a change in the detector, the frequency of the second photon must be lowered. Anyway, there is now an event originating at a slit in the central screen and proceeding to the detector screen on the far wall.

Interference at the detector screen really means superposition of probability "waves" arriving from two or more sources, and their working out by the actual appearance of a "hit." (The movie of the build-up of an interference pattern over time that appears in one of the external links to the double-slit article (?) shows this build-up very nicely.)

When we are looking for interference phenomena a few photons at a time, then the importance of the exact time of arrival becomes clear. If one photon arrives 1/1000 of a second after the first photon gets to the screen, it's already all over. The first photon has shown up whetever its own probability wave and a toss of the dice determined, so it can't interfere with the second photon.

I think that the conditions for interference must be extremely tight. Consider this thought experiment: Simply put a tiny monochromatic lights in each of the slits and leave the main laser switched off. If the two lights were emitting photons continuously, then there should be probability waves arriving from two points simultaneously, and they should cancel as before. But two flashlight beams illuminating the same burglar do not cancel out and leave the burglar in darkness. If they were made monochromatic and reduced to point sources would one then notice the same interference phenomena? I think someone would have noticed by now if this effect is observable. If I had two laser pointers I could try it. But it takes time for lasers to cycle, and the likelihood that (a) they are firing in synch and (b) that they stay in synch for any appreciable length of time seem small to me.

If you think of every photon going through both slits, then every photon will "meet itself at the wall." The two versions of the probability wave are in superposition all the way along. It is only when light hits a detector that its likelihood of boosting an electron up increases to an almost certainty. (Greene says that a photon may "tunnel" and show up somehwere beyond the apparatus that is intended to contain it, but the chances for its doing so are extremely remote.)

Uh oh. I'm sorry I got into this. The probability waves are going to hit different parts of the wall at different times depending on how far the wall is from the slits. Just depending on my poor abilities to visualize, it seems that they will meet simultaneously at one point, next we will see two points (where two spherical wave fronts and the target wall meet).

Is it too simple to say that things take finite amounts of time? I think I want to find my compass and protractor. P0M 12:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that before lasers were available they used sunlight and a pinhole in order to get parallel wave fronts. I guess I don't know how to think about the front of a probability wave of a single photon. P0M 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody is really sure how many ships there were, as different sources give different numbers and combinations. There was a big discussion on comparing the sources a while back, but I'm not sure if it came to any real conclusion. Kirill Lokshin 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... in the text of an article should have the format [[Month DD]], [[YYYY]] or [[DD Month]] [[YYYY]] but not [[Month DD]] [[YYYY]]. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has more detail. :) Gazpacho 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that having gone back to the wikilinked dates, I have been sorting the appearance of the list so that the year is clearly seen. I think it willb e finished ina day or so and then we will have both an easily read list by year and functioning date preferences. On a separate note; "dude" is not an accepted form of address. GraemeLeggett 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article Action of 16 April 1695 has been nominated for deletion due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. Since you are an editor in good standing and continue to be interested in naval historical articles, I assume this is a workable stub, but it might help if you could expand the article or add sources showing why the battle is important, and come to AFD to resolve an apparent date problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of naval battles (note lack of caps) There is nothing wrong with the links off the article. Those with action of are followed to the article (I just tried it) and clicking on a red link takes you to edit a new article. I think you are getting me confused with the editor that put all the dates including those that were part of an article name into datelink format. May I point out (again) that messages to me belong on my talk page not my user page. Otherwise I won't get "You have new messages" flagged up. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by grafikbot 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very long ago, you posted a question about the proper spelling of Niels Juel's name. I've posted a reply on the talk page. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a new reply same place. Cheers. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I recently looked over your edits of Black Death. Although you marked the edits as minor, the change log showed the edits to be significant: [1]. It took me a second look to see that you were mostly changing spacing. It would have been very helpful if you had provided an edit summary, and then I would have rested assured at first glance that you weren't a vandal. Just a note for the future. Thanks and best regards, Icemuon 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I'm not a sysp but when reporting to WP:AIV can you please leave a short description, this makes it much easier for sysops to block users and it does ask for you to keep it short, if they vandalise after their last warning then just write something like:
* {{vandal|Username/IP}} Vandalism after last warning}} ~~~~ .

Thank you. Tellyaddict 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SpookyMulder, I'm not certain about using the usertalk facility on Wikipedia, so would appreciate - and indeed welcome - any exchange to be via email (you can reach me through sailing.navy@btinternet.com). I'm a naval historian, specialist in naval vessels of the Age of Sail and the author of several books on British (and other) warships on the pre-1900 era - perhaps you're familiar with my books on "The 50-gun ship" or "British Warships in the Age of Sail" (the latter is being published as a series in several volumes). I've undertaken a large amount of research over the years, both in Britain (I'm a reader at the NMM,PRO, etc), France and elsewhere, from which most of my information is taken (I have also benefitted from the original research of others who have generously passed their findings on to me). I have what I believe is a complete record of French Naval vessels from 1700 onwards (I will tackle the 17th century later). I have made a start on the articles on French ships of the Line and French sail frigates, but have an awful lot more work to do (frankly, the MAJORITY of ships are missing from the Wikipedia lists) which will doubtless occur piecemeal over coming months. I'd certainly welcome any help you care to give. Regards, Rif Winfield

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be very low:

Edit summary usage for SpookyMulder: 57% for major edits and 9% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpookyMulder. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I've made some changes following your comments at the recent A-class review of Ironclad warship and would be interested to hear your thoughts before renominating. Many thanks, The Land 14:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A tag has been placed on French ship Marat (1794), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Gene Nygaard 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 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 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 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) 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - you recently made a bunch of tweaks to Vasa (ship). Several were good, but I have some issues with a few changes you implemented so I've reverted you for now.

• Don't change date formatting from one preference style to another. The dates in the article uses the American formatting of Month Day, Year. Your edit made the article inconsistent, and generally one shouldn't change the format once one style has been decided upon.
• The cannon numbers were spelled out for easier reading so several numbers wouldn't repeat.
• Century should not be capitalized according to WP:MOSDATE.

Thanks, henrik•talk 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Turkish early battleships, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Sandstein  07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you showed early interest in the Anthony Roll back in 2006 I thought you'd might be interested to know that it's up for FAC.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

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) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

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) 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

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) 04:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

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) 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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]} 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, I'm uncertain if you too are in favour of the title of the page to be changed to S-boat with a redirect from E-boat? I changed all the E's in the article text to S, but had the edit changed back to E. I tried again as it seemed that most people on the talk page agreed that they should be referred to as S-boats instead of E-boats, but again, it was changed back to E-boats. I never said the page should title should be changed, just the text, it seems weird to say E-boat then have an S number after it. What do you think? Troy von Tempest (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of battleships by country 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battleships by country 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. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia: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) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Action of 31 July 1712 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Action of 23 March 1654, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lazman321 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Action of 23 March 1654 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 23 March 1654 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.

Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Swedish sail frigates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced since 2010, no articles or information about the individual frigates themselves

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]