User talk:HLGallon

Welcome!

Hello, HLGallon, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 05:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca

Ooh, thanks for your additions to the Rebecca riots article. I have been meaning to do something with the article for ages, but never got a chance to sit down to it. Nice to see it growing. Telsa 10:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Burma Campaing

It has been a pleasure working with you on the Burma campaign. What is your source for the Japanese information you have been adding as the books I have been reading on the subject are all from a British or American perspective? Philip Baird Shearer 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your last addition to the Burma Campaign is I think contriversial:

Most were Indians. During the period ... This flight permanently changed the racial mix of Burma.

1. ^ So I think it must have a Wikipedia:footnote with a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fort Mackinac

I was more interested in changing the Michimackinac reference which was quite incorrect and thought that the fort should also be identified. I agree that it is appropriate to put in both places some people only skim to headings they are interested in. Dabbler 01:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RQMS/CQMS

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the British Army and Royal Marines an RQMS is a WO2. A CQMS/SQMS/BQMS is a Staff/Colour Sergeant. Only the RSM is a WO1. -- Necrothesp 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Was in RSigs 1980-81, TA 1982-83. Probably age has clouded the memory, but things may have been slightly different in technical arms. Certainly, I recall the RQMS (Tech) was a WO1; the SqnQMS (Tech) was a WO2 (for a detached unit with one of everything). HLGallon 12:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that in my experience (also TA plus studying the military and military history for years), I have never encountered an RQMS who was anything other than a WO2 or a CQMS/SQMS/BQMS who was anything other than a SSgt/CSgt. It may be different in a few units, but as a general rule that's the case. -- Necrothesp 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Found this throu Google looking for "SQMS" because I received an email signed as below (name removed).

A N OTHER

WO2 (SQMS) A N OTHER AGC(SPS)

Rheindahlen Support Unit (RSU)

Image copyright problem RE: Image:37 Inch Mountain Howitzer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:37 Inch Mountain Howitzer.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

• The copyright holder, and
• The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

• An open content licence
• Public Domain
• Fair Use

• The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag {{GFDL}}.

• The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.

• Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

• Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --bluemask 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of Orewin Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Units of the War of 1812

Great Job !! SirIsaacBrock 11:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be making minor additions as and when I can verify the information and get round to doing it. HLGallon 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kohima ridge.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohima ridge.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Contributions

First off, I left a note on the Engagement on Lake_Huron talk page. Second, thanks a lot, now I'm gonna be up reading your articles. I blame you if I'm grumpy in the morning! TKE 05:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kohima ridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohima ridge.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Megiddo POW count

It was very confusing, and I'm glad you informed me. Please, though, take into consideration the possibility of citing the difference of strength and casualties, so as to make it less confusing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbering footnotes (thanks, but....)

You tried to number the footnotes at Battle of Prestonpans in this edit. I appreciate the effort, but the numbers came out wrong -- i.e. footnote 1 in the text corresponded to number 4 in the notes. In this edit I redid the notes using m:cite.php, which is now the recommended method for notes (plus it made the numbers correct). Thanks for your contributions and happy editing!--Craig Stuntz 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Central India Campaign (1858), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Dismissal of Bucknall and Erskine

Hi - apologies for that, you are correct. Note however that you wrote that Bucknall was dismissed on 2 July, not August, and Erskine the following day, which led me to believe that it was related to something else, and caused the revert. Next time I go check and just change the date. :-) Nice work on the article by the way. Andreas 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Cherbourg

Hi. I left a short message on the discussionpage of this article which was created by you. Maybe you can use some of it. Would you like to take part in Meta:Imperialism and world wars? Would be great. Regards, John N. 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mackinac Island (1812)

I see that you've recently created this article, and you did a wonderful job I might add. However, it seems to already exist. see Battle of Mackinac Island. I redirected your page to the one that already exists, and you switched it back. Ok. That's cool. Perhaps it would be beneficial to combine the two pages somehow? They seem to be fairly similar. I dunno. Just seems sorta redundant, on the other hand, maybe you know something I don't and they aren't the same battle. I'm curious, please reply.--SweetNeo85 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

German General Staff Article

Appreciate your points. Not sure why you have this thing about tautologies?

I made some changes in the article precisely because the below comment.

The introduction is pretty poor. I have absolutely no idea what the German General Staff is after reading it... -- Pluke 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as your point about tautologies. I'm just trying to make the article a little "exciting" instead of sterile. As for the "institutionalization of excellence," I think that the article now explains the importance of that. Please review latest edits. Also, please check out Colonel Dupoy's book, "A Genius for War." I read it 20 years ago as a junior officer and it remains an excellent work. Also, it might prove useful to add your comments to the discussion section of the article itself. SimonATL 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

HL - I really haven't poked around Wikipedia on subjects such as the German Army, Prussian Army, etc. Thanks for your comments. Maybe we should back track and consider the plight of some high school kid who might have watched "Saving Privat Ryan" and gotten interested in the German Army. I'm trying to think about how to introduce such people to the subject of the military, in general, to military organization, ranks, branches, specialties, staffs, generalship and things along that line. I'll keep thinking but maybe I'll start by doing more research on wiki articles in place and take it from there. As a young staff officer in the US Marine Corps in the late 70s, I was shocked at the ignorance of my peers on these subjects. The Marine Corps had no concept, at that time, of introducing even its own junior officers to an intellectual or thinking approach to military subjects. Marine Corps Commandants beginning with Al Gray, (interestingly, a former Korean War sergeant with no college degree) began to reemphasize military education. General Krulak took it further, having been raised by his dad, another Krulak general (3 star) and quite a man of letters. Maybe you already know all about this. I'm just trying to give you a little background. I too was a young high school kid, interested in military and political/military affairs but an Ohio farm boy with a dad who knew no more about the military than his own personal experience as an enlisted sailor in WW-II. So I'm thinking how best to introduce someone like myself, young or old, interested in the military and history and theory of it all. Military Science and History goes beyond just biographies of interesting historical characters or particular battles. Historical characters and battles was all I read about as a kid, having no further point of reference. Hope this shows you where I'm coming from. Simon - SimonATL 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re Fred the Grosse, I meant to refer to Frederick I of Prussia, King "in" Prussia not Frederick the Great - glad you caught that. That's one of the things that's about wiki with its multiple editors always improving and correcting - well, at least in theory!SimonATL 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue

Why did you assume that the comments of the other members on Willie Rushton's singing here were superfluous? It's quite in keeping with the style of the article, and well known as a running joke in the series. Care to explain? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was I who added the comment in the first place, and I thought it was perhaps too much information on the subject of musical gags. By all means restore it, if you think it worth retaining. HLGallon 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Ladysmith

Largely in part to your expansions to make this such a quality article, the anniversary of the siege appeared on the Main Page "On this day..." on February 28, 2007. You are hands down one of the most unsung contributors of the history project, and I'm glad you like it that way. Teke ^(talk) 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Marston Moor

Thanks for your message, and I agree 100%. The removal of the previous references was simply because none of the information taken from them was cited in any shape in the article; though it was definetly my intention to locate these books, and others, that dealt specifically with the battle and reincorporate the information with the apppropriate citations. The twenty footnotes of the those ten pages do, I confess, seem a rather large amount but heavy citing is the norm in likes of several featured articles on battles - even when a few pages are being used. It wasn't my attention to take ownership of the article in any shape or form. I hope we can work together on improving the article further, and I will also avoid such major edits in the future without consultation on the talk page. Qjuad 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to locate a copy of Young's book and have begun re-incorporating the text I removed with citations, though I confess my current efforts are rather crude. You were definetly right about Young and I ought to have gotten hold of a copy prior to my re-write. I thank you for your patience and advice. Qjuad 13:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of images for both the York March and the battle itself, the images located on this web page are released under the Creative Commons license so it shouldn't be difficult to get permission to use them if no other alternatives crop up. However, I'm not sure how accurate they are (if at all). Qjuad 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I put up the article for a peer review over at the military history wikiproject for suggestions on further improvements (the review). Other than the obvious point regarding adding maps sometime, mention was made about citing the exact pages of Young and Woolrych. Whats your opinion on this matter? Qjuad 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work on Indian Rebellion of 1857

I am sure this editor deserves a loud thanks for doing a great job in the article so far. I have seen the edits word-by-word (to be honest I feel, any edit on this article automatically raises suspicions on either side of the arguments :) and I am sure all would agree to the fine copy-editing of such a contentious article.

Thanks once again, --Bobby Awasthi 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am sure you deserve that praise because you walked really well on a very fine line. I can understand the difficulty in getting Indian POV or sources since they are limited to native press not quoted in English press nor read by english speaking (so-called) gentry of India. There are few Indians to break into that feudal class (which wants to retain the monopoly ever since British times). Those Indians who are new English speakers but have a better understanding of ground realities are collectively tagged as Hindu Nationalists. To be honest I cannot recollect even a single english source from contemporary India that would give you the other side of story. We depend on Indian language newspaper sites which keep running series on such events (currently 1857 as it is 150th anneversary) and where local university professors publish their researches based on clandestine nationalist press of British times which became official only after 1947 albeit only for decorating the libraries. --Bobby Awasthi 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox First English Civil War

I thought you might find this useful to know. It caught me out. I could not at first work out why there were two pages with apparently the same name but different information! See User talk:GlosterBoy#The Battle of Brentford. But in the end it came down to this small mistake [2] --Philip Baird Shearer 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote

We are holding a vote to move name of article from Rebellion of 1857 to War of Independence. If you feel strongly about either one, please come in and vote. Jvalant 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Utterly irrelvant, but...

It's nice to see another orbat.com reader editing Wikipedia. --RaiderAspect 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of MHDOIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on MHDOIF, by WWGB, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because MHDOIF seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting MHDOIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate MHDOIF itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of York

"By chance, another ship-rigged vessel, the Prince Regent, which carried 16 guns, had sailed for Kingston two days before the Americans had been sighted."
Please provide a citation for this. Atrian 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles W. Humphries, The Capture of York, originally published in Vol. 51 of Ontario History, included in Morris Zaslow (ed.), The Defended Border, Macmillan of Canada, ISBN 0 7705 1242 9 ;

"The British ship they sought, the Prince Regent, had taken leave of York for Kingston on April 24."

The Prince Regent mentioned is the vessel which later became the schooner Sidney Smith, not the 44-gun frigate HMS Prince Regent (1814) completed at a later date. HLGallon 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{INA stub}}

Hi HLGallon, wonder if you can help. I created a stub for articles to with Azad Hind and Indian National Army, and it has just been nominated deletion on what I thought were more to with MoS grounds rather than substance and importance of the content. I don't know wether you know anything about this at all, but if you do (or if you have any comments), could you please have a look here. Cheers.Rueben lys 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Havelock

Thanks. There's a fully reply on my page -- Barliner  talk  11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Imphal and the Manipur campaign

Hi HG, You seem to be generally involved in some of the articles dealing with the Imphal-Manipur area during WW II, and the Burma campaign. I was wondering if you could comment on this, I remember reading from more than one source that Kawabe was actually relcutant (at least initially) to start the Imphal campaign at all, and was only convinced to do so after Subhas Chandra Bose convinced him (or his superiors, I an't remember clearly now) that it was neccessary to start this campaign, and was the Indian soldiers and population learnt about the INA, India would rise against British forces, ie, the Ledo road was probably as much an important target as much the Pollitical success of Bose's army and government, and would also secure the Eastern Frontier with minimal fighting. This is just something I remembered and wondered if this should at all be mentioned in the Imphal article. The other thing was, and on this I am quite sure, that the reason why the Japanese forces did not start withdrawing earlier was because of the pressure from Bose on Kawabe to press on for the capture of Imphal. I do think this might just deserve a mention.Rueben lys 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC). PS:Thanks for sorting out the relevance and adding accordingly, much appreciate your help.Rueben lys 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mission Impossible

See comments on the talk page of the article about tape speed/direction and dubbing of voices. Regards. Edison 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kohima

Hi HG, I noticed you deleted the INA from the combatants in the Battle of Kohima article summarising that it wasn't involved. I am pretty certain the INA was involved, although I am not 100% sure here. But I am fairly certain both Peter Fay and K.K. Ghosh says the INA was involved in Kohima, alothough in a smaller scale. This included both Shah Nawaz Khan's units, as well as the Bahadur group. I will check and get back to you again, but could you have a look at your sources as well please. CheersRueben lys 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but the "burden of proof" lies on the claim; it is not necessary to find sources to state that the INA absolutely did not fight at Kohima. Allen, in Burma: the Longest War refers to the Japanese 31st Division sending "propaganda squads" into Chin and Naga villages ahead of the advance but does not state their nationality. Shah Nawaz Khan reached Ukhrul (30 miles south of Kohima) only in June, by which time the Japanese had already abandoned Kohima. HLGallon 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Battle of Lacolle Mills (1814): You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --AW 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

War of 1812

This is a wholesale change of material both cited and sourced. I am very disappointed in this edit. Tirronan 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Tirronan on this one. On first reading there were one or two things that you changed that made me go 'Hrm, maybe it was better before' but the vast majority was good, I was tempted to revert the revert myself. Narson 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I am getting off on the wrong foot here. The orders of Admiral Warren were to the effect that he atributed the losses of HMS frigates to poor gunnery. I don't have issue with the copy edit to correct sentences. However the removal of cited material as redundent I do take issue with. The comments on the US view of the performance of its own Navy were not in my opinion redundent though I would agree to the need to revise the sentence. However much of the article lacks both citation or sourcing. Indeed to such a point that one part of the article takes off in a different direction from the supporting page. Tirronan 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well never mind it apparently makes no difference to you, please complete your edits as you wish. However please check Battle of Waterloo for a more complete citation example. Tirronan 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Naseby order of battle

A tag has been placed on Naseby order of battle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Yavoh 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re your message

No I did not take your statement otherwise. I know my sentences take longer to come to understand. Fault is long-winded sentences used by me in writing. In any case, it is still easier to accept any shortcomings on my part or ignore anything amiss, if I do not see a clear pattern of personal interest of proving me wrong on the other side. In case of some editors on that page, it is more than evident that they keep blaming other side as Hindu or Nationalist POV pushers, but want to do the same with British POV. Thank you for being there. And yes, whenever you wish to start your suggested article, do let me know and I would definitely read and suggest. And I have no doubts you would do a great job. --Bobby Awasthi 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guitargeorge2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guitargeorge2003.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PurpleGang1967.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PurpleGang1967.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:R1D730.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:R1D730.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lake Erie

That IP address reverted the article again. I'm going to request it to be protected. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. The reverted changes violate WP:V and WP:NOR. HLGallon (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DropTheDeadDonkey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DropTheDeadDonkey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lake Erie

Not at all, its a problem I can well relate to. The main point I wanted to get across was just how complicated it can get when trying to classify ships. All sorts of criteria were used at the time, and most of that inconsistently. Earlier today I was dealing with a naval architect and shipwright of the period who signed his own name with three different spellings at different times, apparently depending on his mood! Also today, I moved several ships about owing to a confusion over the names, where some sources refer to an HMS Bonadventure (a name never used in the Royal Navy, the writer was thinking of HMS Bonaventure), and instances where Montagu and Montague, and Lennox and Lenox have been mistaken. That's not to mention the occasions where HMS Ripon and HMS Rippon can be confused! Ship classifications of this period can similarly be a nightmare, with any number of criteria being applied. As you've pointed out, the actual participants at the time sometimes seemed to be in two minds over what type of ships were involved, and the fact that terms often overlapped adds another layer of confusion. In short, the best way to get around all this (I've found) is to take one, or better still a number of authoritative scholarly works and use their terms consistently, sourcing thoroughly where appropriate. Benea (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian Army

Please see Talk:British Divisions in World War II#British divisional article titles --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making additions to the 14th Army OOB, but no doubt you are aware now that I'm disputing the legitimacy of post-1947 Indian and Pakistani armed forces to unit linages. Because the convention is to add name of the nation in brackets, and (India) signifies a post-1947 state, your additions for the pre-1947 are incorrect. However, what should be in the brackets, as pointed out by Philip, is also a matter of dispute since the United Kingdom's armed forces were in fact (British). I hope you can contribute to the discussion. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"derecognized"

Hi there, Thanks for getting rid of "derecognized." I might have actually put it there. I remember thinking then, "What an ugly word!" But, I was in a hurry, and was quickly paraphrasing some material from another British Raj-related page, so I left it in. Strangely enough OED does have an entry for it. (It is recent though.) OED 1989 edition

Derecognition: The withdrawal of recognition, esp. Pol. formally by one country, government, etc., from another. 1953 Birmingham (Alabama) News 7 Nov. 13/1 A case for the ‘de-recognition’ of the Soviet government has been made by the Soviet agents in this country themselves. 1977 New Yorker 13 June 77/1 Far more convincing..is the legitimate concern one hears expressed about the psychological as well as the material impact that derecognition could have around the world. 1979 Time 1 Aug. 14/1 (heading) Taiwan: An inauspicious beginning: disgruntlement and protest over derecognition. 1984 Washington Financial Rep. 26 Nov. 853 All accounting standards-setting bodies that have addressed the issue have concluded that derecognition of deposit float is inappropriate.

Hence (as a back-formation) derecognize v. trans., to withdraw recognition from (another country, etc.). 1961 New Yorker 20 May 163/1 What we have to do, then, is not spend money on defense, not pay taxes,..and, above all, derecognize Russia and it will blow away. 1972 New Scientist 21 Sept. 486/3 One advanced MSc course within London University has been ‘derecognised’. Awards for one-year MSc studentships cannot be granted to unrecognised courses. 1980 Economist 31 May 50/3 The Russians suddenly discovered Genghis's ‘reactionary’ nature and Ulan Bator derecognised him. 1986 Illustr. Weekly of India 13 July 42/1 Yet another important provision in this bill was the power to derecognise degrees.

If this is a copyvio (and it likely is), please remove it after you've read it. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhofar Rebellion

Hey, I just left you a message on the Dhofar rebellion discussion page (sorry it's unsigned) - let me know what you think about itTrouvaille (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military History project

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812 articles

Sure; I will - they're all on my watch list, which was half the reason for noting them and seeing where I can improve them. If there's a need for the articles/sections to be verifiable then there wouldn't seem to be a problem tagging them appropriately. Please go ahead and take them all off again if you wish. There wasn't any intent to 'publicly denigrate', which just seems a ridiculous remark. Scoop100 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. No problem at all - I think I was a little 'snappy' in my remarks above and apologise for that. There's some great work been put in to these articles; I really hope I've not deflected you from your excellent contributions which clearly have been much appreciated by others, judging by their comments. I'm aware I'm the NKOTB in this area and may have jumped in a bit too strongly but I'm learning - slowly! Scoop100 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: USN ships on Lake Ontario - sources

John R Elting states in War of 1812 Amateurs, To Arms that that during the winter 1814-1815 two 130-gun ships were under construction at Sackets Harbor. I also have another source that I'll have to look up which states the same, however at the back of that book it dopes states that the Chippawa was a 74-gun so there does seem to be confusion. Danwild6 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard I. Chapelle states in "A History of the American Sailing Navy" that Chippawa was indeed intended to be a 130-gun ship. It also states that had construction last another six weeks she would have been completed along with Plattsburg and New Orleans. Danwild6 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"debus"

in my 25+ years in and around the military i've never heard the term "debus" except when getting off of a bus. when i was at ft steward, ga (a mech infantry division) we used the term "dismount". but, thanks for not deleting it, at least. rm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hueydoc (talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i tried to sign it after posting but my attempt was blocked. hueydoc (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2008 (CST)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle for Marston Moor, image by J Baker

Hi there,

I am working as a research assistant on a book commemorating the 500th anniversary of a London school, the author would like to use the Baker's 'Battle for Marston Moor' in the book and we were wondering if you had a high resolution copy, or could point me in the direction of the original?

Thanks very much for any help,

Regards,

Memphis Barker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.20.99 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock

Hello HLGallon! Thanks for your recent improvements to this article. I know it is still undergoing a Featured Article Review. I wonder if you've had a chance to look at the review comments, and if you agree with the comments so far. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No one

reads messages on category talk pages - if you have a problem - go to the australian military project - cheers SatuSuro 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

HMS Nancy (1789)

I see you've improved the article and have left the copyvio cat. Can we mark this as resolved on WP:CV? -- Robocoder (t|c) 06:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

May I leave it for another week or so? Some paragraphs, particularly those containing first-hand quotes, are still a bit too close to some published works for comfort. HLGallon (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lake Erie

I came to this article knowing little of the subject, over the question of the deletion of the duplicate article. In doing so, I checked the article on Barclay, which said (perhaps then said) that he was promoted after his court martial. My understanding is that Post captains, Commanders, and Lieutenants might all be in command of ships, during which time they would all bear the title captain, though by courtesy in the two latter cases. My guess is that your sources are right in calling him 'Commander', he having been promoted by the local admiral, but that was subject to confirnation by the Admiralty, which had not yet been received. My guess is thus that the current version is correct. As usual, there is a danger in editing material beyond one's area of expertise, which is what I did. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

Hi. Lately you have reverted a few of my edits, because I have forgotten to list information about the book. I do realize I forget from time to time to list the books information, but please contact me and inform me instead of reverting to an unsourced version of the page. Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did not notice, I have fixed my mistakes on the cite template. I made a mistake a couple of times, you fixed it, and I have not made the mistake again. When I use him for casualty figures, I have never placed him over another source. I have only added him to unsourced casualty figures, which is absolutely fine. If it was sourced in the article itself, it should have been(or still can be) moved up to the infobox, as that is where more people look. Red4tribe (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Luttich

Hey, would you be willing to collaborate on Operation Luttich this month? I want to have it up to A-Class by the end of August, but I'm incapable of doing so alone. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Cam (Chat) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but give me a week or so to gather sources. HLGallon (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Cam (Chat) 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a question has come up in the GA Review concerning the size of the Luftwaffe fighter-squadrons. Could you check Wilmott, p. 401 for me and see if there's an actual number there? Thanks. Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marston Moor

Just giving you a heads up that I've put the Battle of Marston Moor article up for a peer review; [[3]]. The article has come leaps and bounds, particuarly due to your efforts, and I think is deserving of a run at A Class review soon. Qjuad (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article storming of Bristol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sinai and Palestine campaign categories

Hi,

This new categorisation is a work in progress. It is proposed that military operations/battles etc be further categorised into Battles by war involving country. This is to help clean up the ever growing list of battles being situated under Battles by country (certainly for the very military active countries).

The creating of the Sinai and Palestine campaign categories was a further step of this concept regarding World War I as for some countries the list of World War I battles would still be very long. It also is difficult to navigate if you a are looking for battles by x country in x theatre of World War II if you don't know the name of the battle.

I started off just doing Battles of X War involving X Country and may end up reverting to that concept if it gets meesy, which is seems to be doing. Glenn Sisson (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812 lead

Thanks for your recent work on the lead! That language had been bothering me for a while. There is probably scope for even more improvement, but it would require a good bit of reading. My perception is that the view of this war by historians has been evolving since 1970. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your note. You have a reply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese capture/conquest of Burma

I replied on my talk page, as I prefer to keep things in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my Blitzkrieg reverts/additions

First, I apologize if I gave offense by using the term "mishmash." I didn't intend it tendentiously. I just feel that leaving out the name of Keegan's book in the first footnote was confusing.

Second, an edit was is the last thing I want to get into either. I've done the edit-war thing and, frankly, it bores me (in my opinion too many "editors", a term, I think should be limited to those who've done a minimum of a hundred edits or 50, some minimum that establishes that one has been around wikipedia for more than a few minutes).

I would like to work with you (or anyone else for that matter), in a collegial manner, to achieve the best possible article on this subject. If you wish to do so, pls let me know and we can exchange sample texts to see if we can achieve a mutually acceptable (and much more concise) article about "blitzkrieg." I have one original article to my credit (Agri Decumates), but the reason it looks so good came from collaboration with another editor, who turned my bare-bones prose into an excellent, illustrated article.

I also agree that it's vastly too long. The "historical" sections, as I wrote on the Discussion page, do not belong in the article. At least not in an encyclopedia.

I think those sections belong in an article on Tank Warfare in general (and while I haven't yet checked, I'll bet that most of the material is duplicated in such an article).

I freely admit that I am by no means an expert on wikipedia "policies" or "guidelines" (et al); there seems to be about zero uniformity in how footnotes/cites are done. With two million articles and no central editing entity, such, ah, variety is inevitable. Personally, I feel that any method which directs the reader to source clearly and concisely is acceptable.

I'm not sure I agree that Ibid. has fallen into disuse that completely. The vast majority of works written before the 60s freely use the term. An educated person should either know it (or remember it from Library Orientation days in English and Lit classes) or be able to guess its meaning. But perhaps that's being a little to generous towards our (American) present primary educational system. Once the best in the world, it's fallen badly due to replacement of knowledge with ideology, indoctrination and that pernicious destroyer of achievement, "self-esteem". (If you want to see an example of the extreme opposite of the use of Ibid. see the cites that Britannica recommends in its website!)

I politely disagree that the text is too "US-centric." en.wikipedia.org is of American origin and American English is the lingua franca of the present day, as it has been since the end of the Great War. Therefore the use of American English is entirely appropriate in my view (much as Ile de France French predominates over that of Quebecois, let alone the drastically divergent Cajun and Creole languages). Besides, the orthographical differences are really rather slight, the odd extra vowel in British English, the use of "z" instead of "s" in certain words (e.g. "specialize" & "specialise").

Finally, your statement is somewhat ironic since two of the works I cited the most are by an Englishman (considered by the vast majority of students of the subject to be the greatest military historian of his generation).

PainMan (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I had erred myself regarding the Shirer volume (well-worth reading, btw, if you're interested in the end of the Fourth Republic, although the book is marred, as is his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by his over-weening personal opinions and his disdain for anyone not sharing his Liberal/Left ideology. That having been said, the books, esp. of course the latter, are must reads. After all, unlike so many histories, he was actually there (he listened, in person, to more than 200 hundred of Hitler's, ah, "orations").

Back on point: if the section you quote is "just a recommendation" then I believe I'm correct in concluding that it is not mandatory? (At the risk of redundancy...) And I wasn't disputing that you were are firm guideline grounds (if that makes any sense?), just that I didn't think Ibid, et al, had been banned. In that narrow sense, the interpretation I went with is correct (if not "preferred").

I'll fix the Shirer goof, but I still think "Ibid" (as well as other Latin abbreviations such as ca., op. cit., q.v., are in current use amongst scholars and shouldn't be tossed onto the archaic, let along obsolete pile.

If, however, you feel strongly that changes must be made, I won't get involved in a revert war with you. My mother gave me some excellent advice a long time ago (though, admittedly, in another context): "If the point is more important to the other person than it is to you, then concede. You have to pick your battles." And "fighting to the death" over the style of footnotes ain't one of those battles.

I would only like to note that I have seen almost as many styles of footnoting/sourcing as there are editors. But since wikipedia has no supervisory body to issue ukases on matters of style, or anything else, (though a number of editors seem to believe that they themselves have been granted with such authority), I don't see the citation anarchy ending anytime soon.

In any event, it's been a pleasure to discuss these issues with you without any rancor and in a scholarly manner (sadly rare in these cyber-precincts).

Regards,

PainMan (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon checking the Shirer footnote I found that I had, in fact, done it correctly. Here are both footnotes:

4. ^ Estienne independently of the British, had invented a tank in 1915. Shirer, William, The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Collapse of France in 1940, page 175, Simon & Schuster, 1969 (SBN 671-20337-1); 1994 DaCapo Press Edition (ISBN-10: 0306805626, ISBN-13: 978-0306805622)

10. ^ Shirer, Ibid. 626

PainMan (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet

Hey, thank you for your comments. I believe I have addresses them somewhat. Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nelson class battleship

I am sorry but I have reverted your edit of 02:31, 28 April 2009 because you added what looked like personal point of view remarks. If the observations you added in your edit came from sources, please feel free to revert my edit and add an inline citation for your edit - that way the article is improved. It is also not very clear what you meant by the previous untidy arrangements of open bridges and platforms - does previous refer to an earlier version of the plan? or to earlier ships? Are untidy arrangements of open bridges and platforms bad? If so why? At the time the Nelsons were designed, the Navy believed that people were more alert in open bridges than in enclosed bridges (it turns out they were mistaken - but that was not known until many years later).--Toddy1 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812

Thank you for clarifying on that. It seemed odd that an editor was removing see also's without offering justification. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd Infantry Division

Hi by removing the oob you have deleted 200 years of history, I believe the suggestion on the talk page was to expand the sections not delete them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I added them to the talk as you were working on the article and its easier to retrieve them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Worldhistory09 concerning wars of the roses

I'm sorry about that. My friends and I were assigned to edit a wikipedia article. We are only highschool sophomores, and we did not intend to damage your article. But no worries, we printed out the version we edited to turn in to our teacher for her to grade. We understand that you had to revert back to your original article. Once again, we are sorry for wrongly editing your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldhistory09 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable rail crash - County School 1915

It met the suggested requirements (officially reported on and infrastructure damage) - and I think that the title is "List of rail accidents (pre-1950)"‎, not "List of a few rail crashes that specific Wikipedians feel are important"? I'm sorry but I will revert this (in about 6 hours time) unless I see proof of actual Wikipedia policy on the matter. If you want the full details I will add them - however it is a seven page report so may overwhelm what is supposed to be a basic list. DiverScout (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field

Hi, I have reverted the apocryphal tale of Rhys ap Thomas. It seems more suitable in his biography article than as a whole paragraph here. Furthermore, no historians have related this tale. It is interesting to see that Churchill is the reference for it. How was Churchill using it in his book? Was he commenting on Welsh character or on history? Jappalang (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a local legend Churchill heard during his tours or journalistic career. Thank you for the Welsh naming conventions (I am not familiar with the Welsh naming system). Jappalang (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:MeigsBattle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MeigsBattle.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

tb

Hello, HLGallon. You have new messages at LeadSongDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LeadSongDog come howl 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Strange Fatality"

FWIW, if you're interested in the Battle of Stoney Creek, I'd recommend the book. It only came out the tail end of last month. Depending where you're located, check your local Chapters or if you happen to be near Fort George, I got my copy in their gift shop. HTH Natty10000 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Laura Secord trek date

June 22nd seems to be the common date among the 3 sources I have at hand (Township of Thorold 1793-1967 pg.43, The Battle of Beaver Dams: The Story of Thorold's Battle in the War of 1812 by Donald Keith Dewar with Paul Hutchinson pg. 21 and Laura Secord: The Heroic Adventures of a Canadian Legend by Cheryl MacDonald pg. 61) HTH Natty10000 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

British Army during World War I

Hi I appreciate your input, but one problem I have had all along is trying to avoid adding details of British Empire and Dominion forces. Which as you will be aware has proved hard as they were so intermixed with the Anzac, Canadian and Indian corps fighting alongside the British Army.

During the A Class and GA reviews its been decided not to include them. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War II

Your edit summarys do not match your edits and can you stop delinking RE RASC etc.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

They were not SF the same as the Army Air Corps today are not and remember later in the war RAf pilots were drafted in to fly the gliders.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

S.O.E.

Greetings. I opened up a discussion in the Talk page of SOE. I'm sure you'd like to participate in it, since you were in charge of entries and amendments relevant to the discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First Anglo-Sikh War

You ask "where did these figures [casualties in the British and Sikh forces] come from?" Only a brave (rash?) person will attempt to answer that question. There appear to be as many different estimates of casualties as there are historians. I looked at the question when editing 'Sir Frederick Currie' and decided not to add to the confusion. The series on British Battles seems to me to be one of the more reliable sources for British casualties, as it appears to have obtained its information from regimental records. It records deaths + injuries: Mudki 872, Ferozeshah 2400, Aliwal 589, Sobraon 2283 - I make that 6,144 total. The Sikhs didn't keep comparable records, as far as I can tell. British Battles estimates: Mudki not known, Ferozeshah 3,000, Aliwal 3,000, Sabraon 9,000. All about Sikhs estimates 12,000 total for the war.Apuldram (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Monk's Hood

Just read your summary of the Cadfael book which I had just finished. (second time through and watched the video besides). Great article!Student7 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Battle of Megiddo (1918) Destroyed Turkish transport.jpg

File:Battle of Megiddo (1918) Destroyed Turkish transport.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Battle of Megiddo (1918) Destroyed Turkish transport.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Battle of Megiddo (1918) Destroyed Turkish transport.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

10th Irish Division or 10th Indian Division

If there was only one British battalion per brigade and the rest made up from the Indian army how was it a British division ?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Perrett page 24 just has 10th Division does not use Irish or Indian --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree having read the OOB again all the British divisions were reinforced with on the majority regular Indian battalions. Thats where my confussion has come from as they were mostly the same battalion used in 10th Indian. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

British army nap wars

It's good to see your work at the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars article. I started it a year or so ago with some rather basic information, but became distracted before I could finish it. Your work is excellent; much better than mine! thanks. Gwinva (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculuos

The sentance as it stands now can be incorpated into the previous one and does not need to be a stand alone sentance within the paragraph; on top of which it looks stupid to have an entire sentance in brakets. Information in parentheses' are suppose to be nested within a sentance and a seperate issue from what is being disucussed in said paragraph, not the way it is currently being used.

I dont know why you are blindy refusing to allow this piece of information to be ammended so it reads better but you should at least review what i have changed before you hit the revert button as i also made minor changes that i did not feel needed to be summerised.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A typical straw man argument that is brought up, the fact I didn’t type my previous reply in MS Word - because I didn’t have time - does in no way mean that criticism is unjustified. Please note how my posts on the wiki, bar talkpages, are done in MS Word and are on the whole bob-on with spelling and are grammatically correct. Your straw man argument really is rather pathetic.

Now, using MS Word and being able to devote more time to my criticism so you don’t somehow feel superior and able to dismiss criticism because you have spotted errors, the criticism raised was due to the way you have constructed the sentence, the fact you are blindly reverting edits without looking at what has been changed, and the fact you appear not to want any change made to the way you have done it.

The paragraph in question, without the inline citations:

The divisions operated from then on as two brigade groups, each of two combined arms teams, each in turn of one tank regiment and one infantry battalion. (The division's armoured reconnaissance regiment was matched with the armoured brigade’s motor battalion to provide the fourth group). From this point on, the infantry would now ride on the backs of tanks to provide instant support to the armour.

The sentence is not being complete with a parentheses, it is a separate sentence itself that is enclosed in parentheses. For example see how on the whole they are used within the article you linked to, also see Bracket#Parentheses ( ); which clearly states that information within a parentheses is information that could be done away with, it is extra information whereas the information presented in the paragraph is there to fully explain the situation and could be incorporated into the previous sentence. One will also note that the vast majority of examples shown in these two articles show parentheses being part of a sentence - i.e. Blah blah (blah). – not how it currently is i.e. Blah blah blah. (Blah blah.) Blah...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Assigned or Attached

Yes good point --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the copy-editing on Battle of France. I was the one who put the information in the section but I did'nt really know how to word it :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I will do some more work on the section, mainly providing citations to remove the cite-needed tags. HLGallon (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment

Replied on my talkpage. EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812

Nice catch, thanks. Tirronan (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer

Thanks for correcting my mistake categorizing the 3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer yesterday. Just wondering, why didn't you put it in the correct category instead of removing the wrong one? --Dodo19 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC) .

Engagement on Lake Huron

No worries, it only took a second to fix it. Bonewah (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My Footnotes

Here is a bit from the page on how to do footnotes (to which you directed me):
"Optionally, one may add the name attribute by using [ref name="name">details of the citation</ref]. Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding [ref name="name"/]."
I have been doing the first part [ref name="name">details of the citation</ref] but not the second part [ref name="name"/] because I did not know about it.
Is that the problem? Flonto (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Commas

Dear Mr Gallon, please don't put commas either side of 'and' after I've taken such pains to remove them (see Epsom).21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Roman army

Hi. You are too kind. Actually this article is just stringing together excerpts from other articles I have written e.g. auxilia. The idea is to quickly cobble together a framework that others can then add to and edit. Carry on your good work! Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)**

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Getå Railroad Disaster

Thanks for fixing those refs! I was wondering what to do about them since they looked so hideous. If you wouldn't mind checking over the article in about a week to see that the refs are ok (and the English, if you don't mind), I would be quite grateful! -Yupik (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, got rather sidetracked with other projects. The translation, though, is now done, if you'd like to take a look at it. Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Cobra

Thanks for your edit. However, you missed the point of my edit (and your revert took out an unrelated correction). The armoured reserves were indeed drawn towards the British sector, but not away from the American sector; the armoured units the Germans had sent to the US sector after Goodwood didn't come back. That sentence is ambiguous as I originally wrote it :) EyeSerene^talk 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all :) Your attention on that article is very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 08:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the armoured units sent to the west end didn't get there because of Bluecoat so some of the reinforcements sent west were drawn to the British sector en route.Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I went back and fixed those errors. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Burma Campaign

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. Per WP:LEAD "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article." so having some citations in the lead is needed. Furthermore the article only has 7 inline references so the whole articles references fairly clearly need improvement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PS The clarification needed only applies to the final sentence, I'm pretty sure most of the allied troops fighting the the Burmese campaign were Indian. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The clarification is that I strongly suspect that the numbers weren't about equal between the different countries involved. I'd expect the vast majority of them were Indians so that should be made clear. Given that fighting for the Japanese in WW2 is fairly controversial that other people sided with them is controversial, but to be honest I also don't understand why having a few sources in the lead would be a bad thing, you can just use <ref name="blah"/> so they share the same reference as the less general version of the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Singeing the King of Spain's Beard

Thanks very much for the section explaining the origin of the phrase. Much appreciated. Jkslouth (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Picknitter!! :D

Seriously though, if your background includes knowledge of Captain Runchey's Company of Coloured Men, would you much mind having a go at the work-in-progress? I have them up to the Battle of Stoney Creek and will expand on it early next week. But I wouldn't mind another viewpoint on the info if possible. TIA Natty10000 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the copy edit. Looks much more polished. I'll probably have a go at expanding it further either mid next week or the week after. Natty10000 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812

Do you just wanna flip a coin on the numbers? I know you probably put a lot into the article then, so I figured we can split the numbers. InternetHero (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? No---yes??? InternetHero (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template

The relevant discussion has been moved toTemplate_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:VictorianEraBritishWeapons

Excellent template. I started a similar one, User:HLGallon/WIP, some time ago, but never followed it up. I will add some items and links to your template, if I may, in due course. HLGallon (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More contributions welcome ! cheers, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sinai & Palestine Campaigns

Glad to see your contributions. :) But wondering why you cut the flanking maneuver/right flank link? --Rskp (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Anglo-Maratha War

Hi hows your knowledge of the Third Anglo-Maratha War ? it is up for a GA review and the lede claims It began with an invasion of Maratha territory by 120,000 British troops,[1] the largest such British force amassed in India I can accept the British force part but not British troops. As this was the East India Company. Were they British troops? I suspect most of them would have been Indian can we use the term British or would it be British Indian Army - British and Allied Army ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnome-en-klatura

Re my change to the Arakan page; as I leafed through the OH vol III I noticed the same notation for Japanese units as the ones on this page which I'd altered so I realise that I went against a convention inadvertently. Apologies.Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Worksop

Before reverting I had a quick google and apart from the Wikipedia article, written by the editor who linked it here, I found only mentions of a "skirmish" at Worksop. Battle seemed a bit over the top. However if Warner cites it as a battle OK. I thought given the editor's name it might be original research.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magersfontein

Enjoyed the comment in your last to this article. If you've not already done so, please would you take a look at this article's A-Class review. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Towton

Hi, there. I have taken actions that I hope address your concerns with the lede in the article. Could you take a look and point out if your concerns have been resolved at the FAC? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation for participating in an FAC

Thank you for your comments — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Lincoln

Much better. -- PBS (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hari Singh Nalwa Ji the Teezan & Kunee

I have constantly been trying to put worthy titles for the worthy Hari Singh Nalwa Ji. I personally heard myself these titles for him by the Yousafzai women of today's Haripur & its the same what used to be talked of him 175 years ago & that is : Raghe Hari Singh Teezan ("Hari Singh Dangerous is coming")or Raghe Hari Singh Kunee ("Hari Singh The Brave is coming") Kindly consider it & dont remove it or at least make sure you visit Haripur & listen to the folklore yourself. Thankh you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.160.59 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Folklore is not a reliable source. Your edits contradict the sense of the text, which is properly cited and source. The page has now been part-protected to stop you and your sockpuppets repeatedly vandalising it. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. HLGallon (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not fair. Raghe Hari Singh Teezan, Kunee, Dey Haghee de mor pa kuna omandam.......That's the immense respect attributed to him even today in Hari Pur, the city in his name. Kindly consider.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.27.216 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of George Borowski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Borowski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

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

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Megiddo info. box

Hi. What kind of problems do you see ? Please don't revert without without reasonable causes. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have at least some good reason for reverting your addition to the Ottoman commanders in the information box in the article. In general, this section has been misused in other articles to become a cenotaph rather than a source of information. The general rule, expressed in the discussion (not very well conducted) in Template talk:Infobox military conflict is that This should be restricted to the lowest single-point-of-authority(s) who had active strategic / operational command (either de facto or de jure) for the planning, coordination and execution of their forces in a given conflict. (emphasis mine). In this case, for the Ottomans, this would be the commanders-in-chief of Yildirim, von Sanders and Mustafa Kemal who replaced him. If we start adding each Ottoman army commander, then we should also add every Allied corps commander, and the Emir Feisal, and once we are started on this path, there would have to be good reasons not to include the RAF commander(s) in the theatre, Lawrence of Arabia, several Arab tribal chiefs, Ottoman and German corps commanders and so on. All these supporting cast are given their due prominence in the order of battle in the middle of the article.

I think it fair to state that the Ottoman army commanders had little responsibility for the overall direction of operations in the theatre, and very little influence on events after Allenby's offensive opened on 19 September. HLGallon (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanders was the commander of army group and others were the commander of field army. However, if we must choose commanders according with their responsibilities, we can choose Sanders, Djevat and Mustafa Kemal. Because when the offensive were launched, Djevat's Eighth Army and Mustafa Kemal's Seventh Army were deployed on the frontline. Djemal's Fourth Army was at (relatively) peripherical area of the main battle field. What do you think about it ? Takabeg (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sinai and Palestine Campaign's infobox

Do you have any information about Jadir and Tala ? When you have time, please control them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Langport

Another editor added a ref improve banner to Battle of Langport so I have added some of the references I could find & removed the banner, but as the major contributor to the article I wondered if you had anything else to add?— Rod ^talk 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nouns

About your edit of South African Class NG G13 2-6-2+2-6-2, what I was still typing when the cat stepped on the "enter" key, was: Just like "plinth", words like "axe", "pipe", "cart", "wheel", "shovel", "spoon" and more are all nouns. Add "d" or "ed" and they are verbs. Besides, the word I used was "plinthed", not "plinth". André Kritzinger (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, even without adding "d" or "ed" to turn them into past tense verbs, all those nouns can be used as verbs as they are. For example, "work", "pump", "rape", "book", "list", "view", "paint", "colour", "love", "hate".... are these nouns or verbs? André Kritzinger (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to undo your edit again. See MOS:TIES. André Kritzinger (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

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

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

MP or member

Please see Talk:Committee of Both Kingdoms -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

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

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Troops

You'll notice that I left it in place in contexts such as "British troops" or "some troops". Using "troops" as "soldiers" is appropriate when an indefinite number is given, but one soldier is not one troop. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, when one soldier (or a specific number of multiple soldiers) out of troops is indicated, the term is "trooper" or "troopers". Check OED. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry: I didn't realise that I messed up the flow of any sentences. I ran a find command for "troops" and manually replaced all usages that used it as a count noun; that's why it seemed haphazard. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Miller Worsley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voyageur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Burning of Washington

In saying that I was not clear what atrocities were referred to, I merely meant that it was not clear to me what was referred to. I certainly inferred from the following paragraph of the article that it was instigated by Prevost, but I did not see that in Morriss. It may be there, but perhaps not, in view of the {{cn}} tag in the next paragraph. I examined the issue because it was an item posted on Requests for Comment that I thought I could deal with. I do not claim expertise on the events of the War of 1812. My doctorate was on otehr aspects of history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done HL. I think the "Reasons for Attack" section can finally stand up to some scrutiny. I'm just rather surprised it had lasted as long as it had without being challenged. Natty10000 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank *you* for your comments. The "Revenge for York" legend is as enduring a myth as "Canadians burned Washington", which has had to be expunged two or three times since I started editing some years ago. HLGallon (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have to confess that before this particular back-and-forth the 'Revenge for York' thing is not one I would've entirely discounted as the burning of Washington (like the Battle of New Orleans) falls outside my particular sphere of interest. Off the cuff, it seemed a not-unreasonable assertion (one capitol burnt to compensate for another) but is rather facile, overlooking as it does the increasingly nasty tenor of the War in the intervening year and such more recent happenstances as the Newark pre-Christmas bonfire (with its attendant follow-up house fires in Youngstown, Lewiston, Buffalo and North Tonawanda) as well as other notable depradations. Of course, how long the section remains as is remains to be seen. Natty10000 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

United States Expansionism

I think that it was wrong to revert my edit. It is irrelevant how the author mentions the information as long as it doesn't violate copyrights,is from a reputable source, and supports the edit.As for the irrelevance of the Revoloutionary War, there is another sentence about the same treaty in the British Support For Indian Wars section,but no one appears to be attacking that.Rwenonah (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my change of user name, I forgot my password. However, I think that it doesn't matter how something is mentioned in a book, as long as it is there and is by a reputable source. As for the consenus, I would not trust those results.This ongoing expansionism arguement is essentially a difference between American and Canadian/British viewpoints on the war. The Canadian/British viewpoint is that the U.S wanted to annex Canada.I think that this viewpoint deserves representation. But since the Canadian population is smaller then the population of the American state of California, there are many more American editors willing to support the American viewpoint then there are Canadian/british editors willing to do the opposite(this is reflected on the page). In addition, I once angered a number of editors by putting in a page reference from the wrong book, which they took as a lie and attempt to add a POV. Another time, I accidentally violated 3RR( I didn't know about the rule). Thus, I would not trust a consensus as impartial or accurate. My view is only a minority view inside the US. In Canada/Britain it is certainly a majority view. If you would like to edit an encyclopedia oriented toward the United States, I believe there is a website called "Conservapedia" which has an American flag on the main page.Rwenonah (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies and explanation

Dear HL Gallon,

Plese accept my heart felt apologies for not editing in the correct manner. This is the first time I have done this. The first time I put in the sentence I thought that it had not taken as the next day it was not there. I realise now that you cancelled it.

I would very much like to have a talk with you about the content regarding the Karen Levies, if you would care to reply.

I will be getting copyright on the article I would like to put in. Once again my apologies and I do hope to hear from you. My email address is madeleineblu@aol.com

Yours sincerely, Madeleine Blu

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleine Blu (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Megiddo

Looks better without the large table in the middle. I have done some minor copy editing trying to remove some of the fluff. Wouldn't be surprised to see it reverted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Severn River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Relief of Montgomery Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Severn River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. When you recently edited Yugoslavia and the Allies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)