User talk:Ed!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Talk Archive

Archive 1: 08/2006 - 02/2008
Archive 2: 02/2008 - 05/2008
Archive 3: 05/2008 - 08/2008
Archive 4: 08/2008 - 05/2009
Archive 5: 05/2009 - 08/2009
Archive 6: 08/2009 - 11/2009

Archive 7: 11/2009 - 03/2010
Archive 8: 03/2010 - 04/2011
Archive 9: 04/2011 - 12/2011
Archive 10: 01/2012 - 07/2012
Archive 11: 07/2012 - 12/2012
Current talk: 01/2013 - Present


Contents

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)[edit]

In This Issue



This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Portland class cruiser is now a GA[edit]

Huzzah!

I did leave one message in the review that warrants some attention (or at least I think it warrants some attention). It would be nice if you put in alt-text for the images in the article, as a service to people who have to use screen readers to enjoy Wikipedia. Please consider it.

Keep up the good work, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OMT[edit]

Thanks for joining OMT! Now we have to worry about whom we're addressing when we say "ed". Buggie111 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah hah, yes I was worrying about that. I look forward to contributing! —Ed!(talk) 14:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome aboard sir :) Glad to have on board for our effort, and we look forward to seeing out there in the field (not that you haven't been their already, we just like to welcome people. Its how we roll, so to speak :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see you join. Welcome, and what a nice name you have! ;-) I came by to offer a suggestion for further improvement of the Portland-class cruiser article... Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: A Design History is absolutely indispensable for the US cruiser class articles. It's also ridiculously hard to find and expensive when you do; I've never seen it below $110, although the $180+ prices I see now make that look like a bargain. Good luck, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) review[edit]

Ed!, thank you for your helpful comments! I've responded on the review page, and may need some guidance with some of those issues. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed GA. Hey, good work on that article. It's nice to see something so thoroughly research in spite of the trickiness with finding sources. —Ed!(talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! I will try as hard as I can to find more info on the archaeological side of things before putting this through to GA. I will take all of your suggestions to heart in trying to improve the article! Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I was hoping to get your thoughts about a certain source. I've just been able to get ahold of an electronic copy of the 2006 Archaeological report, which summarizes everything that's been done on the site since 1847; I've read through the pertinent sections, and would like to build two or three paragraphs out of it. The only catch is, as far as I know, the report hasn't been widely disseminated. It has an OCLC number and a worldcat entry, but is only available in hard copy a) at the Historic site itself, and b) at East Carolina University's library. What are your thoughts about whether or not this would pass WP:VERIFY? Cdtew (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's a report that was conducted or funded by the federal/state government, it should not have any verifiability problems. Otherwise, it really depends on the institution, and I think you'll be pretty safe if it's a university. That reminds me, http://scholar.google.com might be a good place to go looking for other academic journals related to the fort. —Ed!(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you emphasized the need for archaeological information, I was hoping you'd take a look at what I now have in the Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Construction and Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Site preservation and archaeology sections. I expanded a little with some information from the 244 page report -- I'm, not sure if this is enough, or too much info, but I didn't want it to get bogged down in too many details. Let me know your thoughts! Cdtew (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. It's looking much improved with that info. I think you have what you need there. —Ed!(talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldmann list[edit]

I nearly completed the list here. Is the format what you are looking for? I am having some issues with translating the German location names used during World War II to what they are referred to today. Can you assist? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found a few, but I don't know Russian at all. It appears that a few of them (Kutelnikowo, which is probably Kotelnikovo; Krymskaja is probably Krymsky) don't yet have articles anyway. I wouldn't consider redlinks to towns in an instance like this a problem, especially considering the lack of comprehensiveness en.wiki has concerning Russian municipalities. —Ed!(talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the feedback, but generally speaking this is what you were looking for? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's exactly what I had in mind. Let me know when you've finished putting it together and I'd be glad to support. —Ed!(talk) 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Please check the article again. I added the table now MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence and hard work. Supported the article. —Ed!(talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Hart GA nom[edit]

Hi Ed!, thanks for your review of this nomination. I plan to take this one to A-class so any feedback is greatly appreciated. I have responded to your comments here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed. Great work on that article. I would certainly say it would perform well at an ACR. —Ed!(talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! I see the project class tags haven't been updated, I will take care of those. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Great! Usually a bot comes along and does that automatically, buy it's been somewhat slow of late. —Ed!(talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SSG Romesha[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
For your work on the article on Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha, I would like to present you with these chevrons. You have earned them, and your work is a testiment to the quality of work produced by the WikiProject Military History. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! —Ed!(talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Much thanks! I'm sorry I wasn't able to stand for election to be a coordinator last year, but I'll be making a much bigger presence in the project's reviews this year. —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


James Gwyn[edit]

Hi Ed, if you have time, would you be able to take a look at the article James Gwyn and recommend any changes necessary for its DYK nomination as well as areas to focus in preparation for A-list? Cheers, Mkdwtalk 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clinton Romesha[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Clinton Romesha at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded. —Ed!(talk) 15:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Reviews[edit]

Hello! Just wanted to drop by and say that I have responded to your four Office reviews that you looked over for me! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed them. Great work! As you may have noticed I'm an Office fan myself, so I've been happy to see so many of those articles getting quality treatment. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring George S. Patton to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I thank you very much! I'm very proud to have been able to work on this article. —Ed!(talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a table[edit]

It's a list, albeit an illustrated one. Lists are very difficult to make into prose. So I'm wondering now when you'll finish the edit to that purpose.

There seem to be an awful lot of these kind of rules that I keep tripping over, and I'd be obliged if you'd point me to where they are kept or the style manual or whever it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTO Trainer (talkcontribs) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. —Ed!(talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mochitsura Hashimoto[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Mochitsura Hashimoto at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this one! —Ed!(talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Office[edit]

I believe I've addressed all the problems for "Training Day" and have nearly completed with "The Target". -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll wait till you're done with the Target and then pass both at the same time, if there's no rush. —Ed!(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now I think I've finished with "The Target". Thanks for reviewing them! -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Passed both. Great work! —Ed!(talk) 12:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter[edit]

Trophy.png

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Hi! Just so you know, i'm currently doing a review of your article Mochitsura Hashimoto. Please see my comments so far on the review page. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mochitsura Hashimoto[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Drive Award[edit]

GA Award.png The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For all your help reviewing 20 GA nominations during the November-December 2012 drive. — ΛΧΣ21 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Clinton Romesha[edit]

KTC (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles[edit]

I believe you are misrepresenting the verdict of this RfC to say that it supports unboxed ribbons as opposed to small ribbons in a boxed context. Several editors supported inclusion IF small and/or in a collapsible box. The infobox is a box and ribbons therein are unobtrusive. To greatly increase the size of the ribbons and include them in the body of the article is inconsistent with WP:ICONDECORATION. What that policy supports is less ostentatious boxed ribbons in contrast to using Wikipedia as someone's chest. I cannot imagine Britannica or a respected newspaper engaging in these glorification practices that attempt to recreate the uniform on the page. We are here to inform, not decorate. See "Appropriate use": "Icons may be helpful in certain situations: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" See also "Inappropriate use": "Do not use icons in general article prose"--Brian Dell (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was a big proponent of using infoboxes or dedicated table graphs for military decorations, but I was in a pretty small minority in the RFC. See the comments toward the end of the section; essentially most MILHIST users think the images are too prominent in an "awards and decorations" section, but they're too small to be useful as you're proposing to display them -- the link is right there, and the only reason the images should be included alongside it is demonstrating what the ribbon looks like. If it's too small to be useful as a visual aide, it's decoration. ICONDECORATION and NOICONS may or may not run afoul of the decoration section, but that's been a fiercely debated subject at MILHIST without consensus for years. —Ed!(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that the consensus verdict was "too small to be useful"; if that were so I would think that there wouldn't be any icons in the infobox at all. The US Army icon actually has text on it that is entirely unreadable, unlike for the ribbons where one could make out enough distinguishing characteristics to readily recognize them.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, people at MILHIST seem to be pushing for exactly that; no icons in the infobox at all. If you think there's a possibility the consensus has changed I welcome a discussion of it again at WT:MILHIST, but we had another discussion just a few weeks ago about military symbols in articles, here. It didn't cover the infobox specifically, but read through it and you'll see a lot of people pushing that military symbology is of limited use unless it's relating something that can't be found by clicking on the link. —Ed!(talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013[edit]

In This Issue



Leroy Petry GAN[edit]

Ed, I've started to review articles, to try and pay back what I got out of the process already. I've reviewed Leroy Petry. Most of my comments are somewhat trivial, and I think the article only really needs some minor work before I'm comfortable listing it. I'm watching the nomination page, so feel free to respond there! Cdtew (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded. get back at me with any thoughts. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leroy Petry[edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For the edits and effort it took to improve the article on Leroy Petry to good article status I present to you this barnstar. Your efforts reflect positively upon yourself, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Military history, and Ohio University.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, did you see the information I left regarding the permanent orders which may pertain to Petry's Valorous Unit Award? He may actually be authorized to wear it with oak leaf cluster, but that might be OR. But as far as I can tell that's two text sources that verify wear of at least one as a permanent wear item.
Also, I have filed a FOIA request to see if we can get the service records of Petry and Giunta, so we can have something solid to work off of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed![edit]

I saw you're very involved with reviewing and content writing in regards to Military history related articles. I'm working on improving the references on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article (in my userspace) and while doing that I added in some content, removed a little bit of content and changed some content. Now... I admit I'm not the best content writer and I want to improve upon it but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind chipping in your two cents regarding feedback if you wouldn't mind. Or if you think anyone else could be helpful in this arena and think they wouldn't mind offering their .02 that would work too. Thanks for your time, — - dain- talk    02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some background would be helpful, you jump right into the invasions, but there's some pre-history to the invasions that could be added to establish a little more what lead to them. The lead paragraph should just summarize the article; it shouldn't provide any background that isn't already a part of the article (per WP:LEAD.) It would also be helpful to add some of the implications of the conquests. There was a brief note about architecture which I believe was one of the most significant. I think some other cultural implications might have resulted from the invasion which could be included. —Ed!(talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, brilliant! Thanks for the valuable input. For the "you jump right into the invasion", in the first section it deals with three differing 11th century sources of how the Normans arrived in the southern Italy. Do you mean that should be broken down perhaps into level 3 sections each from one of the sources? Or simply that there should be something else in the article prior to the sources describing the events of how the Normans arrived in south Italy? Good point on bringing up the Norman architecture, another result of the conquest was the Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture that arose and I could add in that section with a {{see also}} link below the section header and a summary of that page basically. Would it be appropriate to finish the article by mentioning how the Normans essentially "lost" the Kingdom of Sicily (by marriage) to the german Hohenstaufen dynasty? Thanks again! — - dain- talk    02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Clinton Romesha to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad to say this one was ready to pass as submitted. Always happy to see more great contributions from you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Much thanks Khazar! I'm always happy to contribute. —Ed!(talk) 13:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter[edit]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Office[edit]

I believe I have completed work on the two GA-nominated episodes of The Office: "Suit Warehouse" and "Junior Salesman". -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Glad I've been able to review so many of your GAs. Keep up the good work! —Ed!(talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

David M. Shoup[edit]

Hi! Just letting you know, I have started my review and there are a few points on the review page that need addressing. Could you please take a look? Thanks! RetroLord 09:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your second round of comments. Thanks again! —Ed!(talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Ed!; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! —Ed!(talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.[edit]

Hello Ed from Australia, great work on Storming Norman, it well deserves GA. AWHS (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 12:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Keep up the good work![edit]

WPMH ACR (Swords).png The Military history A-Class medal with swords
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to present you with this award in recognition of your great work in developing the Arthur W. Radford, George S. Patton slapping incidents, and George S. Patton articles to A-class standard. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter[edit]

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate London Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's New South Wales Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Alaska Keilana (submissions) and New South Wales Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Indiana Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GL request completed[edit]

Crystal Clear app gimp.png
Hello, Ed!. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Regards, Patrick87 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.
Thanks for your work! —Ed!(talk) 02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

American generals[edit]

Hi Ed, don't know if you'e looking for something to kill some time, but if you are, Wesley Clark could do with some TLC. He's been on my watchlist for a while, but I'm not very good at checking my watchlist and I don't know much about him beyond Pristina. Seeing the ACR for H Norman suddenly reminded me that I hadn't been paying Clark much attention lately. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes I've been eyeing an article on someone from the modern wars, was considering Clark or John Abizaid or Tommy Franks. Will have to take a look around to see if there are sources. I've been extremely busy in the past few weeks and I've had to cut down on Wikipedia time, though. —Ed!(talk) 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well Clark passed FAC back in 2007, but the article's been a bit neglected for the last couple of years. There's no glory in bringing an FA back up to scratch, but you'd be doing the encyclopaedia a service. Though of course, real life has to come first. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Shoup[edit]

Hey, I just passed Shoup. Congrats, it is quite a nice article, good luck with FA if you plan to take it their. I also really like your user page RetroLord 03:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! —Ed!(talk) 03:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AfDs[edit]

Hello. Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team, I would like to inform you that two articles have been renominated. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Buffalo State Bengals football team (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 St. Norbert Green Knights football team (2nd nomination). Best, Edge3 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Just letting you that subsequent AfD nominations are posted at:
Edge3 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Proposed_deletion_of_470th_Military_Intelligence_Brigade_.28United_States.29[edit]

Please take a look at this at the bottom regarding the 409th Support Brigade (United States). REgards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links tool[edit]

Hi. I've seen you are GA reviewer and you used this tool. I can't find this tool on tool-server. -- Bojan  Talk  02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The script I use is available here. —Ed!(talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Uf that only marks duplicate links. I need something that removes them. Ok, thanks. -- Bojan  Talk  03:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I don't use any tool like that. There is a tool to remove disambiguations, but as far as duplicate links I just use that to spot them and then remove them manually. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Maybe someone else does have a tool like that. —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much. It's always a pleasure helping. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Arthur W. Radford, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! —Ed!(talk) 02:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter[edit]

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and second place Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

USS Leary (DD-158)[edit]

Thank you for updating the USS Leary (DD-158) article. Before this gets further into the Good Article review process, you might want to look at the second paragraph of the Design and construction section. Aside from the typo on the spelling of speed, the section has a confusing reference to USS Blakeley.Thewellman (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I fixed it. —Ed!(talk) 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Should the preceding paragraph be changed as well?Thewellman (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. I lifted those graphs from my work on the Blakely page and wasn't paying attention to some of the names. —Ed!(talk) 02:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rank insignia[edit]

Hi Ed, I am interested in helping to write a guideline as mentioned. I imagine it might cover command icons and others - you would know better than I, perhaps. Could it be included as a section of WP:NOICONS? Span (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd suggest it be a standalone essay, the issue has been very back and forth for a long time, and there's a lot of things to consider which I think wouldn't apply to most readers of NOICONS and WP:MILMOS. If you prefer, I can help you, I've been involved in a lot of the discussions. —Ed!(talk) 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My background is in biogs but not much in military. I am happy to follow your lead. Span (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)r
Putting together an essay at WP:MILICONS. Feel free to add and change anything. I'll finish up those two sections tonight. —Ed!(talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Great. Thanks Span (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edward Soriano[edit]

Gidday Ed, I'm doing a GA review of this chap here. It is noted in the infobox of the article that he received the Distinguished Service Medal twice and a Bronze Star. However, there is no discussion in the body of the article as to when and why he was awarded these medals. From the nominator's comments, it seems this may be difficult to determine without going into speculation and OR. My feeling is that this is information that most readers would want to know and so should be in a GA article. I know you have done a lot of GA reviews and a lot of work on US military bios, so would appreciate a second opinion as to whether I'm being too strict on this. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I can help in any other way! —Ed!(talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Ed!! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ed! I'm so glad you've decided to join us at the WDL project. You can dive into improving content in this massive todo list I have created. Be sure to watch list your favorite lists, as I'll be adding more content as it's released to the WDL website (monthly). If I can help you with anything just let me know. I look forward to seeing your outcomes. Thanks again! SarahStierch (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day![edit]

Stairmageddon[edit]

Finished work on "Stairmageddon". Thanks for the review! -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Passed. Great work! —Ed!(talk) 08:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Murder" GAN[edit]

I believe I have addressed all of the issues that you brought up in the GAR! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed the GA. Great work on that! —Ed!(talk) 09:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New York class[edit]

Hi, do you have Jones' U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I? It would help you a lot in writing this article. :-) Also, you could try searching Google Books for gems like [1], especially regarding the launching and trials, but I'm not sure how much there will be because it was in the lead-up to WWI. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know that! I can always use more sources for this one. —Ed!(talk) 08:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Anytime. United States Battleship Division Nine will help you with that period of their service lives. Also note that you're going to want to limit Google Books' date search parameters to search around the launching and trial dates, or else you're going to get a lot of white noise. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "FOOTNOTEJones1995139" defined in <references> is not used in prior text

What's wrong? Best wishes --Frze (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Figured it out and fixed it. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 09:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Good Article Recruitment - Completion Award.png
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
For the considerable effort you've put into David M. Shoup, a very well-written military biography. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Chris! I appreciate that. —Ed!(talk) 01:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre Opens June 19[edit]

Good Article Recruitment - Completion Award.png
Hello again! Now that we have enough recruiters (for now) to launch the Recruitment Centre, the opening date for the centre is set for Wednesday June 19, 2013.

To help "expose" the Recruitment Centre, ideas on how to promote it will be helpful. I have already requested two promotional ideas: A quick mention in next weeks Signpost, and a possible mention on everyone's watchlist. Also, spreading the "news" from 'Word of mouth' will probably come in handy as we can spread inform WikiProjects/users to inform them about the centre. Any other ideas should be mentioned on one of the talk pages at the Recruitment Centre or on my talk page.


Just to clarify some things before we begin recruiting:

  • When getting your recruitee to review a nomination, do not let them reviewer one of your nominations (if you have any).
  • Step 3 in the "The Process" section at Recruiter Central is only a guide. You can take a completely different approach if you want as long as you cover the same material; however, steps 1,2, and 4 a/b must be followed.
  • Don't force your recruitee into reviewing one of the nominations from nominators in the "Nominators That Are OK With A Recruitee Reviewing" list. If they want to review a different nomination, there's nothing to worry about, just let them. :)

That's pretty much it for now.


If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.--Dom497 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Recruitment Centre Now Open[edit]

Due to a personal emergency, I've opened the Recruitment Centre a bit early. There are currently 3 users that would like to learn how to review nominations who can be found here. Because there are only 3 recruitees and 8 recruiters at this time, please limit the number of recruiters you handle to one (just for now). If you have any questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks for volunteering!--Dom497 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Chris troutman (talk · contribs) seems to want you to recruit him so whether you accept or decline please let him know on his talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Miami Valley Hospital South[edit]

Gatoclass 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have time for a GA review?[edit]

Hey there! I'm WikiRedactor, and I have a favor to ask you. Last month, I nominated the television series The Hills for GA, and it has yet to attract a reviewer. I see that you have a lot of experience reviewing these kinds of articles, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking this one on. (No worries if you're not interested!) Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Writer's barnstar.png The Writer's Barnstar
For placing second in the May 2013 Military history WikiProject Contest with 70 points from 8 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Question[edit]

Can you give me a second opinion on this review regarding the neutral perspective (1st comment)? Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Newall[edit]

More or less done bar the part with Beaverbrook - I've shifted it around a bit but I'm not quite happy with what's there now. I'll have a look again tomorrow. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter[edit]

Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!

Hi Ed!! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

  • We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
  • Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
  • WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
  • Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter[edit]

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 10:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Battle of Taejon[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Taejon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 21, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

An American gun crew near the Kum River

The Battle of Taejon (14–21 July 1950) was an early battle between United States and North Korean forces during the Korean War. U.S. Army forces, attempting to defend the headquarters of the 24th Infantry Division, were overwhelmed by numerically superior forces of the Korean People's Army (KPA) at the major city and transportation hub of Taejon. The Americans were already exhausted after two weeks of attempting to stem the KPA's advance. The entire 24th Division gathered to make a final stand around Taejon, holding a line along the Kum River to the east of the city. The American forces, outnumbered, ill-equipped and untrained, were pushed back from the river bank after several days, before fighting an intense urban battle to defend the city. After a fierce three-day struggle, they withdrew. Although they could not hold the city, the 24th Infantry Division achieved a strategic victory by delaying the North Koreans, providing time for other American divisions to establish a defensive perimeter around Pusan further south. The KPA captured Major General William F. Dean, the commander of the 24th Infantry Division, and the highest-ranking American prisoner during the Korean War. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary/archive2[edit]

Hey, as someone who commented on the last FAC for Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary I'm letting you know I've opened a new FAC here. I would appreciate your comments this runthrough as well. Thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Patton FAC[edit]

About time someone got this great general to FAC level! PumpkinSky talk 00:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review Question[edit]

I could use your guidance. I'm working on a GA Review for Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Posen. It relies almost exclusively on one source. The GA criteria don't seem to prohibit this, so long as the article isn't riddled with maintenance templates and there's no original research. However, heavily relying on one source is concerning. Can the article pass? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For GA, it can pass, but the nom should know that it won't be up to snuff for anything above GA, when it comes to articles relying heavily on one source. —Ed!(talk) 11:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to be recruited[edit]

I want to be recruited and learn how to review good article nominations, as an article I've nominated has been listed for over a month and is still stuck at #23; the more people that know how to review good article nominations, the faster the GA process will take. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to! Opening the recruitment here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Brambleberry of RiverClan I look forward to working with you! —Ed!(talk) 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter[edit]

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC[edit]

  • As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Many thanks! —Ed!(talk) 15:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Recruitment Notice[edit]

Good Article Recruitment - Completion Award.png
Hello! I just wanted to remind our recruiters (you) about some things that seem to be forgotten about during recruitments and one "minor" change in the instructions.
  • When starting a new recruitment or finishing one, please please please, update your column(s) in this list. Also, please remember to update this page accordingly. This will help keep track of past and current recruitments.
  • Regarding the change within the instructions, the GA Bot has now created a separate list of GA nominations including only the nominations by nominators that included themselves in this list. When asking a recruitee to be a nomination, suggest they go to this page and pick a nomination from there. This is not mandatory but strongly recommended as we have already had one case where a recruitee was "scared" by a nominator (that was not on the list stating that they are fine with recruitees reviewing their nominations) and left the recruitment.

Thanks!

--Dom497 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Good article reviewing process - I would like to be recruited and have a strong interest in military history articles (WW2 Luftwaffe)[edit]

Hi - I would like to learn how to review articles for GA-status and, per the instructions here, am writing to ask "if [you] would like to recruit [me]." My interest on Wikipedia is primarily military history, specifically WWII German Luftwaffe, and the fact that you cite your experience in reviewing military history articles led me to contact you specifically. I would very much so like to learn the art of reviewing from the perspective of one who shares this interest in military history. Just an fyi - now is a very good time for me to undertake to be mentored, as I have significant time available and the flexibility to apply it to the learning process. Please let me know if I can study under you, and what would be involved. Thanks. Azx2 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the slow response. Still interested? —Ed!(talk) 01:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC[edit]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Half Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring George S. Patton (estimated annual readership: 890,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Million award logo.svg This user won the Half Million Award for bringing George S. Patton to Good Article status.


If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Patton was a massive undertaking, and I'm glad to see it reach a high level of quality. —Ed!(talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter[edit]

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 06:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Good Articles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 13:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Patton[edit]

Congrats on the FA PumpkinSky talk 19:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Patton was a huge project to be sure. Very proud of seeing the FA star on that page. —Ed!(talk) 15:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Invitation from a Recruitee[edit]

Hi, would you like to recruit me to become a Good Article reviewer? --Rskp (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! What kinds of articles would you like to review? —Ed!(talk) 01:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in replying. Well, I'm not sure. I edit exclusively WW1 Sinai and Palestine Campaign, so maybe it might be interesting to try something different. Would you mind choosing? --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Tell you what I'll do -- I can show you a few general articles that you'll commonly review in GA, then we can proceed from there. That work? —Ed!(talk) 01:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. So I've started a new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/RoslynSKP and we can commence from there. —Ed!(talk) 21:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. If you have any questions about co-ord tasks, please let me know. I'm more than happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2013 – September 2014

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter[edit]

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

David M. Shoup[edit]

Greetings, Ed! I just wanted to remind you about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David M. Shoup/archive1. It's a very strong article, and I'd love to see it promoted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes! I need to look through the source material again for that. —Ed!(talk) 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Hi. You trained me back in June to perform GA reviews via the Recruitment Centre. Since then, I've not only performed reviews but also submitted two articles for review. Both reviews went badly. The first review hit several snags with the reviewer. I think the reviewer was asking for work beyond the GA standard. The second review was failed only hours after it started, with no opportunity to work out the kinks. Did I not learn something during your instruction? Is this WikiProject uneven in how it's run? These two experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth and I'd appreciate your guidance. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at them are very different from the way I'd conduct a review. In the instance of Rudy Boesch I think it might be a case of different opinions. MILHIST has such a strong A-class review process that a lot of the experience reviewers look at the articles with that kind of thing in mind. I've been on both sides of a review that was being conducted above GA standard. In one instance, the nominator told me my standards were above what GAN requires, and it turned out he was right, and I backed off a little. In the end, you can always ask for a second opinion, or just renominate the article after making a few changes. Different reviewers have different standards.
The Ernest Brace article is a little bit of a different situation. Taking a look at it, some info is missing. You've been good at including the most heavily covered info, which is on his military service, but info about his early life isn't in the prose. It might seem redundant, but that info should appear in the WP:LEAD, the WP:INFOBOX and the body of the article, because all those parts serve different purposes. Looking at info after his retirement, more needs to be included there, too, since the last mention is from the 1970's. This doesn't mean you need to put in a ton of detail in those places; it isn't always avaliable. It's just to say a good article needs to cover all of the bases to some extent. If there isn't a lot of detail on his early life the article should say that, and be referenced to a reliable source that makes it clear.
Hope that helps! Let me know if I can be of any more help. —Ed!(talk) 01:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Recruit[edit]

Hi. I saw your name on the recruiter list and would like to ask if you'd be willing to recruit me into the ranks of Good Article reviewers. I've contributed to a number of articles on all sorts of topics, but my interests are mostly in Film, Television, Classical Music. I've got a GA nomination of my own currently in the process, so I thought it would be only fair for me to be willing to review other articles -- and I want to be sure to do a good job. Thanks for your consideration. Jburlinson (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd definitely be willing to recruit you. Let me know a little bit about what kinds of articles you like to review. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 01:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In looking over the list of outstanding GA nominations, I could probably be of most use in the categories of "language & literature", "media & Drama" (film, television, etc.), "philosophy & religion", or history. I'd be willing to help out wherever needed. Thanks for taking me on. Jburlinson (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ed. I just finished the cleanup on a GA article I nominated, which was reviewed by Khazar2. He indicated that he had some time and would be willing to recruit me as a GA reviewer. I had noticed that you're already working with another recruitee, so I was thinking it might take a bit of the load off if I worked with him. Is that OK with you? Please let me know if you foresee any difficulties or would like to discuss. Thanks for your willingness to work with me. Best wishes. Jburlinson (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem! Good luck! —Ed!(talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 01:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for winning the WikiCup GAR prize! There's a terrible backlog there, and your quality reviews are deeply appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Congrats from me, too, and thanks for your reviewing work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award[edit]

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 4, the semi-finals. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 11:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Awarded to Ed!, for the strongest contribution of good article reviews in the 2013 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 11:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination[edit]

As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg
Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days!

In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.

At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg
Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!

If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!

If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow testing[edit]

Hey Ed :) (or Ed!:)?). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...[edit]

Waltensburger Chur2.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Classy Christmas/GA1[edit]

Ed!, you opened this review on October 19, and haven't posted anything to it since. Since there's a backlog drive going on, if you weren't planning to start the actual review soon, I thought it would be best to get it back into the reviewing pool, in the hopes that it gets picked up before the drive ends along with 2013. I'll be happy to put it back if you'd like. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ed!![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Ed!:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


The Inner Seven[edit]

Hi Ed, and happy New Year. I recently created James P. Hagerstrom, one of the two-war aces, and I noticed you improved John F. Bolt and George Andrew Davis, Jr. to FA, both of which heavily use Oliver, William E.; Lorenz, Dwight L. (1999). The Inner Seven: The History of Seven Unique American Combat 'Aces' of World War II and Korea. Turner Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-56311-504-2.  Unfortunately, some of the pages from Hagerstrom's entry are missing from the Google preview, which I think would help me to expand the article further. If you have access to that book, would you be able to send the missing pages (namely 68, 73, 74, 77, 79, and 81) to me? Cheers, ~HueSatLum 01:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, I got that info the same way — reading the book on Google. The whole reason I only did those two were they were the only ones I could get a complete bio for. Sorry, wish I could be more helpful! —Ed!(talk) 22:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad then. Sorry for bothering you. ~HueSatLum 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: John F. Bolt[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of John F. Bolt know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 26, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 26, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

John F. Bolt

John F. Bolt (1921–2004) was a United States Marine Corps aviator and a decorated flying ace who served during World War II and the Korean War. After dropping out of the University of Florida for financial reasons in 1941, he joined the Marine Corps at the height of World War II. Sent to the Pacific Theater of Operations, he flew an F4U Corsair during the campaigns in the Marshall Islands and New Guinea, claiming six victories against Japanese A6M Zeroes. Bolt continued his service through the Korean War, entering combat through an exchange program with the U.S. Air Force in late 1952. Over a period of several weeks in mid-1953, he led flights of F-86 Sabres into combat with MiG-15s of the Chinese Air Force, scoring six victories during fights along the northern border of North Korea, commonly known as "MiG Alley," giving him a total of 12 career victories. Bolt stayed in the Marine Corps until 1962, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel and serving as an analyst and instructor in his later career. In retirement, he qualified as a lawyer in Florida. He remains the only US Marine to achieve ace status in two wars and was also the only Marine jet fighter ace. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter[edit]

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter[edit]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive[edit]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: 1st Provisional Marine Brigade[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of 1st Provisional Marine Brigade know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 15, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 15, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

United States Marine Corps logo

The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was an ad-hoc unit of the United States Marine Corps (Marine Corps logo pictured) that existed periodically from 1912 to 1950. Formed for specific operations and not considered a "permanent" unit, the brigade saw five brief activations for service over forty years. First created for duty in Cuba following a 1912 revolution, it was next activated in 1941 when it was hastily constructed from the 6th Marine Regiment to garrison Iceland after the its occupation by British troops during World War II. The brigade participated in the Battle of Guam in the Pacific War, conducting an amphibious landing on the island and subduing resistance from Japanese troops. It was activated again in a brief organizational shift after the war. The brigade was hastily reformed in 1950 for service in the Korean War. It participated in a counterattack at Masan before reinforcing U.S. Army units during the Battle of Pusan Perimeter, and at the First and Second Battles of Naktong Bulge along the Naktong River. It was deactivated for the last time when it was merged with the 1st Marine Division. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter[edit]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter[edit]

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

File:1SpaceBdeSSI.jpg[edit]

Someone asked about the source of this file you originally uploaded. Perhaps you can help? --MGA73 (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Chaplain–Medic massacre[edit]

I imagine that it was hard to write Chaplain–Medic massacre, thank you for doing it, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)