User talk:Lawrencema/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casualty figures[edit]

I use antiwar.com, they list all of the attacks that happen every day in Iraq, along with casualty numbers, so I use that. I use the numbers from Salahadin and Diyala provinces because the operation is mainly focused there. (Top Gun) 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Basra (2008)[edit]

Just for your information, I moved the section post-operation clashes into the article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008. The battle should only be about the March 25 - March 31 events. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption offer[edit]

I would be happy to adopt you! Just let me know. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basra operation[edit]

Looks like you're the expert here. Just let me quote the relevant sections from Jane's Defence Weekly (I've stuck the reference in as you probably saw), and then please rewrite my edits as you see fit:

[23/24 March] '...particularly strong resistance was encountered within residential areas held by the Jaish al-Mahdi militia associated with Moqtada al-Sadr. Most of these areas were secured by Iraqi Army forces involved in securing a base of operations in the east of the city, anchored on Basra palace. In one case, however, roadside bombings and intense urban hit and run ops undertaken by experienced militia fighters caused an Iraqi Army battalion to lose cohesion during the initial day of fighting on 25 March. The unit in question, an element of the IA's 52nd Brigade (14th Division) had only recently graduated from the Besmeya training facility on 13 February. Raised from Basra recruits, the battalion proved unwilling to fight other Baswaris and disbanded with the loss of considerable numbers of Humvees, many of which were later recovered while dozens of others were burnt. The battalion commander and deputy commander were later relieved.' ... 'A set of experienced IA brigades tightened the cordon around key Jaish al-Mahdi neighbourhoods in western Baghdad such as Qarmat Ali, Qibla, Hayanniyah, Tamininyah, Khamsa Meel and Jumhuriya. These included the IA 14th Brigade (4th Division): a motorised unit of Kurdish and Arab personnel with a readiness ranking of C1 - the highest possible'.

That was mainly extra info I though you might like to have. This is the text of the 9 Div paragraph, immediately following: 'Alongside this unit were brigade-sized formations of Iraq's elite formations: the 1st and 9th divisions. The 3rd Brigade (9th Division), a motorised unit, was one of the first post-Saddam Iraqi units formed and is considered an elite quick-reaction force unit. The 35th Brigade (9th Division) is a tank formation with two battalions of reconditioned T-55 MBTs and BMP-1 IFVs plus a further battalion of motorised infantry deployed to Basra.' (JDW 23 April 2008, p.28)

Hope that helps in getting things straight. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military History Project[edit]

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:

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! Wandalstouring (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellibeing's edit on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)[edit]

Hello, please correct me if I'm wrong. He removed sourced content calling it POV when it scarcely is. I reverted. Ultra! 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Hisham 5ZX[edit]

..should be paid attention to. Articles such as Dulaim are being frequently vandalised by him. After being blocked, his sockpuppet is resuming the same editing pattern. I see that you have been helping in reverting him and that is really admirable. Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:
Hello!! Your opinion here will be very appreciated.
Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On "battles"[edit]

Hi Lawrence,

The average reader of Wikipedia does not need to be an expert on Soviet terminology to deal with the article titles since they are in English. Keep in mind that most people who access article on the Eastern Front are probably either already somewhat familiar with the subject, or are desiring to learn more, and are probably not expecting to find themselves in "Kansas" if you know what I mean.

However, the use of the word "battle" is what I consider a propaganda term, since a "battle" does not tell the reader what happened, but only where. Battle, as a military term is quite ambiguous, and you will not find many military personnel using the term in an operational setting, that is when the military operations are being planned and executed.

I will break the Battle of Basra for you down to specifics to show how the use of "battle" has been used in the media to obscure the information.

A "battle" is in fact considered a term of combat at the operational level of war, that is one where combat occurs above the tactical level of a division, but below the strategic level of an Army (US formation, not US Army or Iraqi Army). The information in the Battle of Basra says that some 30,000 Iraqi forces engaged about 16,000 Mahdi Army personnel. 30,000 troops are about two infantry divisions in strength. For a conduct of offensive operations the accepted conventional numeric superiority required by planner is at least 3:1. In the urban environment the ratio is likely to be required higher, maybe 4-5:1. This is largely known from the Soviet-German experiences during the Second World War. So, for a start we have under strength operation for the Iraqi Army as a whole. I then look at the order of battle. This gives five divisions with eight brigades, or somewhat less than two brigades per division. The usual US Army divisional strength is three brigades. What this means to me is that in fact there are four divisions participating, but all are at 50% strength in terms of personnel, and are at 2/3s of their expected force structure. In the US Army such divisions would have been considered to have fallen below combat readiness and would be withdrawn from combat operations if possible. However, for assured success, the Iraqis should have ad a minimum of 16K x 4(5)=64K(80) troops or four to five full strength infantry divisions. This immediately tells me that the operation was forced on the Iraqis, and that they were not ready for it by a long shot. The forces on the offensive need numerical superiority because they tend to suffer heavier casualties, but the heavier casualty toll was taken by the Mahdi Army, so I must assume that they were on the offensive, so conducting a very aggressive defensive operation. The ratio of deserters to killed and wounded by Iraqis is 2:1 which definitely suggests poor morale, and this coupled with under strength units suggests recruitment issues reported last year were not resolved.

Now lets consider other implications of the term battle here. Battle of Basra suggests a big combat engagement for an entire major city. However, nothing can be further from the truth. Firstly only a sector, or some sectors Basra were contested. Secondly it is not possible to conduct one "battle" in urban operations. What happens is that the city is divided into sectors and allocated to specific units so no friendly fire occurs due to misidentification of personnel in often confused terrain. For this reason urban combats are almost always tactical, or a number of simultaneous combat engagements. Given the order of battle, I would say that possibly the Army brigadeswould have been deployed for conducting the combat operations while, half the Iraqi forces, the security units, conducting security cordon operations around the combat area to prevent entry into combat area of any Mahdi supporters. Given the size of the Iraqi brigades, what we have therefore is not a grand "Battle of Basra", because even motorised infantry units devote as much as 30% of their personnel to combat service support functions. Of the remaining 10K, the about 20 battalions would have conducted tactical engagements, each of about 5-700 Iraqi troops, in their sectors, probably with not insignificant command and control difficulties for their first operation of the type which apparently went quite bad, and eventually succeeded only because the Mahdi were on the offensive and "ran out of steam". And this despite US and British air and artillery support.

So, this is why I don't like using "battle". Same goes for "invasion".

  • Second Battle of Fallujah

Firstly note the disparity in casualties between US and Iraqi forces. Given they were the aggressors, the offensive nature of the US troops stands out like a sore thumb.

Its a bit confusing for the ordinary person to tell what was there, but in urban combat only infantry do the real fighting, all other units being combat support. The funny part is that the two regimental combat teams are in fact pretty much equivalent to good sized brigades or full regiments with three infantry battalions (one mech), while the two brigades are essentially two infantry battalions probably being used as either reserves or sector fill-ins. The Iraqi forces constitute a single brigade. Again, this is an urban combat, so eventually a tactical one. Effectively three brigades are involved, which is a full division, which in scale of combat terms means the upper limit of a tactical deployment. As far as "battles" go, it was probably half the size of the Basra, but significantly more intense because of the more aggressive US troops being used.

The appellation of "second" is funny because unlike field battles, urban battles generally follow same processes if the terrain is not taken the first time. There is little scope to change anything because the terrain is the same, so the more appropriate name would have been "first battle replayed". The interesting bit is that the First battle of Fallujah lists an entire Marine Division where as in fact it was five infantry battalions assuming use of Combat Engineer Battalions in infantry roles. A full Marine Division has three regiments of four battalions each for a total of 12. So what we have are elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (reinforced). Again, the use of battle together with the city name is meant to give the impression of a major combat, however what occurred was five tactical engagements in their respective sectors.

As you can see the term "battle" does not really allow the innocent bystander to tell the difference between tactical engagements and major historical operations such as the Battle of the Bulge. Its called misinformation. Invasion has same connotation since it does not carry any inherent information aside from assumption of an offensive.

Use of code names such as Operation Phantom Fury is mandated by military operational security, and removes all innate information from the title of the operation, so neither the scale or posture are known.

The Battle of Wanat was only a politically strategic "victory". In military terms it was an action, i.e. a small tactical combat that would have been called a skirmish 100 years ago. The media made more of it than it was worth, despite the casualties, or because of the casualties given Western sensitivity to them in the 21st century. Note the allied commander was 1st Lt. Jonathan P. Brostrom, i.e. a platoon commander! This is the lowest field rank of an officer. That his platoon withstood an attack by even 200 assailants, never mind 600, says much about the combat skills of the Allied troops involved because they were outnumbered by factors of 3-8.5:1, the correct factors for conducting offensives as you may recall from the start of this reply. Militarily, it was an overwhelming allied victory that showed even an Allied platoon commanded by a brand new Lt was capable of withstanding an assault by a better part of two companies or even a battalion of Taliban. Yet again, the word "battle" does not convey any of this to the reader--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Barnstar[edit]

Military Barnstar

I would like to present you the Military Barnstar in recognition of your work on the Iraq War. Keep up the good work! Ndunruh (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dulaim[edit]

Hey, could you take a look at this article and see if it should be deleted or what should be severely truncated. It was created by the now-banned POV edit-warrior Hisham whom you have encounted.

I thought about just deleting the page, then I thought about just truncating it to the single line "Dulaim is an Arab tribe", but the introduction seemed to have some salvageable statements. Anyway, do what you will, if you want. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 01:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Scott[edit]

The B-class assesment you've just given this seems very generous, there are whole paragraphs without inline citations (which I was about to address). I think yo uneed to be a little tougher, I'm goign to relist at requests for assessments to get a bit more input. David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it (see link above), so hopefully someone with a bit more experience will have a look at it, which will help you get used to the standards. Since it was previously marked as a stub, there was also a stub template on the article itself, which if it's to be regraded should also come off. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War infoboxes.[edit]

Thanks for the message, I like your ideas. It seems the Iraq War pages rather cluttered and unorganized at the moment. IMO, it would help to illustrate any proposed re-organization with a flow chart or some other visual aid.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessment[edit]

When you assessed the "B" rating of the Battle of North Point article, it included a large amount of copyrighted text. I've reverted that article to a point before such text was added. Is there a means by which to have the article reassessed? —ADavidB 12:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: 2/5 Independent Company[edit]

Hi Lawrence, The article is B-class now, but to reach A-class all its current sections would need to be expanded so that it more fully covers the unit and its history. It's on the right track, but needs a fair bit more work. The military history project's A class and GA criteria are explained at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment and there's a showcase of A-class articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#A-Class articles which may be of interest. I hope that helps. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Ramadi assessment[edit]

I declined B-class on the article for two reasons: there are a few {{cn}} tags that indicate material on the page either has been challenged or will be challenged in the future, thus making the article unstable, and because I would like to see you reformat your references with citations templates. In the case of the latter, the citation templates will make it easier for the article to go above B-class ranking, which will mean one less thing to worry about should you or someone else decide to take the article to GA, A, or FA class. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ramadi[edit]

Listen I have a proposition. The 2006 Battle of Ramadi was clearly a lost battle as far the Marine corps was concerned, as they themselves admitted. The situation in the city was clear as day by the end of November, the insurgents were the ones in control. Now, I admitt the subsequent operations starting since early December, with the arrival of the Marine reserve force, and ending by mid-2007, most probably with the battle of Donkey Island, with the clearing of the city of insurgent forces. So here is my proposition, start another article, called Battle of Ramadi (2007). This would be the Third Battle of Ramadi. It should be distinguished from this previous one. The Third Battle practicly started when the Awakening Councils came into the fight, which didn't happen before December. Like in World War Two, you had, I think five consecutive battles for Harkov, but they are all recognised ass different battles and not just one. So again, I propose starting another article. And I think that most of the things you have already written in the Aftermath section of Battle of Ramadi (2006) could be used as a bases for the new article, excluding the Devlin report section. So, what do you say? I have already stated this same thing at the discussion you started at Wiki Military history project. Let me know what you think. Bye! Guyver85 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading over now. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, for some reason you are very hostile towards me, I donn't know why, let's just calm down and find a compromise here without edit waring, buddy. OK? First of all there is no need for your removal of the section about the November offensive, it has been sourced by the article written by the Times correspondent. In any case the incident needs to be mentioned because it was notable at the time for the reports of mass civilian deaths claimed to have been inflicted by the Marines. If you do not think the given reference is enough place the [citation needed] tag but don't remove the whole section. And please don't try to tell me something like that it has no place in a Wikipedia article as some insurgent propaganda, for one it's not propaganda if it was reported by a Times correspondent, unless the Times now works for Al-Qaeda. And secondly the incident I think has been described pretty NPOV. So please don't remove the November offensive section anymore, I ask you nicely. Now back to our problem of the result of the battle. You have a problem that the Marines said the battle was lost in August while the date says the battle lasted until November, I can easily put the Devlin report as a reference for the result, which would confirm that the battle was admittedly by the Marines lost at least as late as September. Now listen my earlier proposal still stands, if you realy wanted to know, I was already thinking for some time now to start a new article about the final battle for Ramadi in which the Marines finaly took the city in 2007, but only with the Help of the Salvation council. I will do it if you agree. If you have a problem with the name how about Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007). I am not trying to mislead anyone, but trying to make a point that these are two different battles in the overall strugle for the city. And also I am not trying to conduct content forking. I am of the opinion this last battle started with the formation of the Salvation councils, but they didn't become that much active in Ramadi up until late November, early December. Also in late November, early December, were the Marine reinforcements sent into Ramadi and the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division arrived in Ramadi as late as January 2007 and conducted their own offensive which ultimately, in alliance with the Salvation councils, defeated the insurgents. Please, be reasonable, I am not trying to represent this falsely and mislead the readers. I am a realist. If you want it your way then in that case there were no two battles for Fallujah but just the one and we should then merge the two articles on two battles of Fallujah into one. Also my example of the battle of Harkov, there were five or six battles of Harkov that came one after the other in a short span of only a few months, but they were not just one battle. I think you get my point, so give me a chance and I will do an article about the final fall of the city to the Marines and the Salvation Councils, and the date of that battle would be put as November 18, 2006 (day the first units of the Marine reinforcements arrive) - July 1, 2007 (day after the battle of Donkey Island). I put the end date as the day after the battle of Donkey Island because after the battle of Donkey Island there were no attacks in the city for full 80 days, which showed the insurgents had finally been defeated. So, what do you say, c'mon. I realy think it will look great, if you say OK I will do it first thing tomorrow.Guyver85 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ramadi copyviolation and Check user request[edit]

First of all, I have rewritten the section on the November incident that you requested because trully it was a copy-paste violation. Somebody who wrote that paragraph copy-pasted it from the given reference. I found the reference because you requested a reference be given for that section. You said that it had to be rewritten, so I have changed the text a little but not that much as to change the story. If you think it should be changed a bit more change it.

Now to other matters, your accusation that I am User Top Gun and User 89.216.235.26. Yes, I saw your request to check up on me. And I will give you an answer. Yes I am 89.216.235.26. I occasionaly make an edit without signing in because I forget sometime so my edit is registered as being made by 89.216.235.26. Next item. No, I am not user Top Gun, if you must know user Top Gun is a friend of mine, and after he was blocked indefinetly he asked me to continue his work on the lists of Iraqi insurgent and security forces fatalitie reports and Afghan security forces fatalitie reports. But as I started updating those articles for him I got hooked on Wikipedia and decided to continue editing it on my own. Hope that clears it up. By the way that was low to try and shut me up on Battle of Ramadi (2006) by trying to block me. I fought you said we will talk about this. I will await your answer at my talk page.Guyver85 (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can find any more sources on that incident because the only news agency that was reporting and researching those reported killings was the L.A. Times, and I was lucky that I found those references that I found because the L.A. Times's articles are all now dead links.Guyver85 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK you don't want to accept my compromise solution, so I will give you another one and I ask you please to accept it. Let's start TWO new articles. One will be the already proposed Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007), which will cover the fighting from the coming of the reserve force until the battle of Donkey Island. The other article, and I think you will acept this one, is 2004-2007 Ramadi campaign. This article will cover the battle of 2004, the intermission period of 2005, the battle of 2006 and the battle of the period from end of 2006 until mid-2007. It will have links to those battles which will be separate articles. Something like Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 and 2008. So what do you say? You agree?Guyver85 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He, he, you twisted my words, when I said Battle of Ramadi (2006-2007) I ment as a third battle from December 2006 to July 2007, starting after the reinforcements and the pro-tribal militias went in, but... I give up, extend the article to include the fighting after the reinforcements and Salvation councils came into the battle. But I still think that it is wrong and should be a third battle. You are a very, very, stuborn and uncompromising man. Don't bother to copy my statement to the discussion page of the article because I already have stated this same thing at the discussion page.Guyver85 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anbar campaign[edit]

Check this out Al Anbar campaign. I managed to fix something up on the bases of what we were discussing before. What do you think?Guyver85 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put a lot of references because I linked the sections of the article to other articles which hold the references.Guyver85 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham[edit]

I am watching that article as well as a number of others who are popular destinations for Hisham. The check user confirmed another sock puppet of him, but there was no comment regarding the IP. I found that odd since I used IP geolocation and compared the suspected IP with those who are known to be used by Hisham, here is what I got:

1. IP: 217.132.4.166 in TEL AVIV, 32.067/ 34.767

2. IP: 217.132.135.61 in TEL AVIV, 32.067/ 34.767

3. IP: 77.125.89.22 in TEL AVIV, 32.067/ 34.767

4. IP: 77.125.8.158 in TEL AVIV, 32.067/ 34.767

Interesting, wouldn't you say? In fact, what really surprises me is how can someone in Israel know so much about local tribes in Iraq and other info that ordinary Iraqis themselves might not know.

Cheers mate!

Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for adding sources to Battle of Baqubah, it is much better now. --dicttrshp talk 04:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOFA[edit]

Hi. A press conference of the transcript may be found here ("President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement" in which Bush says:

Okay, everybody calm down for a minute. First of all thank you for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me. And if you want some -- if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw. (Laughter.) Thank you for your concern, do not worry about it.

Given that the press conference was about the signing of the SOFA, and that the event has generated wide coverage, I think it might be appropriate for the article. Thoughts?--70.224.16.81 (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your excellent comments on the Military history of Australia during World War II article. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Keith Miller[edit]

I have to work on a greater variety of sources but I can't see how I can fix the issue about the relative weight for you, without chaning the weight of the writers on Miller. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books have been diversified. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian commandos[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the B-class parameters. I'm afraid I forgot to do it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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) 19:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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) 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation[edit]

Who are you? Listen Lawrencema, I have no idea who you are now and who Top Gun is, and if you mean the lists of victims of war than yes I maintain some of them. Currently I update Afghan insurgent and security forces casualties and update the Iraqi insurgent and security forces casualties since nobody else does them and that I only do every 15 days or so, you can check it in the edit history, some of those edits I went and not edited for more than a month even. And as far as I can see the last user who updated those two articles before me was some guy named Guyver, he was doing it every posible day, he stoped I don't know why. I started editing Coalition casualties in Afghanistan only from January I think. And what timeframes and results of conflicts are you talking about?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan[edit]

Response to your comment of references for the figures, I did provide them in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, I put references, both icasualties.org and DoD. I stated that 608 soldiers were reported killed (608 names on icasualties.org, all confirmed by DoD) but also noted that the number is higher than the one given by DoD. If you want I can put the DoD's number also and so we state the number of dead is between 601 and 608? But currently I think you should consider my compromise proposole about listing the incidents of deaths of soldiers like in List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq. We don't list the names of soldiers so it wouldn't be in violation of the Memorial rule. What do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said on my talk page. That's exactly what I have been proposing to do. Replace the names with incidents and numbers. No name, no rank, or anything like that. So in that case it wouldn't be a Memorial. I would gladly do just that and I am ready to start on the work tonight, but the problem is I can't talk Nick into it. There is no point in me doing the reconstruction of the article if it is just deleted again because of the current nomination. The current nomination has to be withdrawn, Nick doesn't want to accept this compromise.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totaly agree with you. If everybody agreed I will delete the list tonight and replace it with a table with numbers of deaths by province and country. I will replace it tonight so I hope the AdF nomination will be withdrawn.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the DoD hasn't got a list. Only numbers. Both CNN and icasualties count Iraq only after March 19, and both CNN and icasualties have put on their Afghan list those killed before March 19 in Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganised a bit more the article so there are two sections, one for the DoD number and one for the icasualties number. But I still think that Nick's comment that icasualties is not reliable is unfounded since here on Wikipedia iCasualties.org has been accepted as notable, like it says The website is considered an "authoritative" record of MNF casualties in Iraq and has been cited by, among others, the BBC, Voice of America, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Like I said all of the major news outlets that we use as sources here on Wikipedia use icasualties as their own source. So in essence icasualties is the king of sources in this specific field.

As for the concern what the website's sources are, like it says here on Wikipedia itself The website compiles information on casualties incurred by the Multi-National Force (MNF) in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan using news reports and press releases from the U.S. Department of Defense, CENTCOM, the MNF, and the British Ministry of Defence.BobaFett85 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it would look like[edit]

I have finished what the article would look like if I would edit it right now. Tell me what you think?

As of March 27 2009, 635 U.S. servicemen have been killed in the War in Afghanistan. Of this number, 451 have died in hostile action and 184 in non-hostile incidents. Included in these numbers are four CIA operatives that were killed in Afghanistan, two in an ambush, one in a prison uprising in November 2001, and one in an accident. One other CIA operative was killed in a vehicle accident in Kazakhstan. A civilian DoD employee was also killed in action while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.[1]

Of the American deaths, 608* have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 27 died in: Kuwait, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, the Arabian sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, while supporting operations in Afghanistan.[2][3][4][5][6]

As of March 17, 2009, 2,737 American soldiers have been wounded in action in Afghanistan, with 1,770 not returning to duty.[7]

Note: The number 608 is based on the list of names provided by icasualties.org. It should be noted this number is by seven higher than the DoD's officialy stated number of deaths, even though all of the names listed at icasualties.org were confirmed by the DoD.

Fatalities[edit]

Country of death Number of
hostile deaths 		Number of
non-hostile deaths 		Total number
of deaths
Afghanistan 435[8] 141[9] 576[10]
Pakistan 3[11][12] 9[13] 12[14]
United States (died of wounds received
in Afghanistan) 		8[15] 3[16] 11[17]
Kuwait 2[18][19] 8[20] 10[21]
Germany (died of wounds received
in Afghanistan) 		3[22] 4[23] 7[24]
Arabian Sea None 3[25] 3
Qatar None 3[26] 3
Persian Gulf None 2[27][28] 2
United Arab Emirates None 2[29] 2
United States (died of wounds received
in the Persian Gulf) 		None 1[30] 1
United States (died while on leave from
the theater of opearations) 		None 1[31] 1
Bahrain None 1[32] 1
Indian Ocean None 1[33] 1
Khazakhstan None 1[34] 1
Red Sea None 1[35] 1
Saudi Arabia None 1[36] 1
Turkey (died of wounds received
in Afghanistan) 		None 1[37] 1
Uzbekistan None 1[38] 1
TOTAL 451 184 635

Note: These numbers were provided by icasualties.org. To confirm the numbers are correct go to [1] and use the filter to show the exact number of deaths per country of death. Following the use of the filter in the bottom left corner is the number of names listed per country of death.

It should also be noted that four deaths have been included in this table that are not on icasualties.org's list but were confirmed to be related to the war in Afghanistan. Those were the deaths of: the Civilian DoD employee, a CIA operative in Khazakhstan, a sailor lost in the Indian ocean and a soldier who was on leave from her unit in the United States.

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://icasualties.org/oef/
  2. ^ http://icasualties.org/oef/
  3. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=5677
  5. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007May21/0,4675,CIAFallenOfficers,00.html
  6. ^ http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/112901/upd_075-5426.shtml
  7. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
  8. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  9. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  10. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  11. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3502
  12. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/01/22/kuwait.americans/index.html?iref=newssearch
  13. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  14. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  15. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  16. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  17. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  18. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3502
  19. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/01/22/kuwait.americans/index.html?iref=newssearch
  20. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  21. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  22. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  23. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  24. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  25. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  26. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  27. ^ http://www.militarycity.com/valor/262972.html
  28. ^ http://www.militarycity.com/valor/262914.html
  29. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  30. ^ http://www.nooniefortin.com/afghanistan.htm
  31. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=5677
  32. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  33. ^ http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/112901/upd_075-5426.shtml
  34. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007May21/0,4675,CIAFallenOfficers,00.html
  35. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx
  36. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=3652
  37. ^ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=5696
  38. ^ http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx

External links[edit]

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

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) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help[edit]

Hi, mate. I just wanted to say thanks for all of your help with the Military history of Australia during World War I article. It has been promoted to GA largely because of the work you, User:Hawkeye7, User:Nick-D and User:Anotherclown put into it.

The WikiProject Barnstar
For all your work on the Military history of Australia during World War I article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)[edit]

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) 03:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)[edit]

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) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)[edit]

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) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

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) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]

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)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]

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) 00:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]

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) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

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) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

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) 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

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) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

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) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

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) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]



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) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]



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) 21:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]



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) 23:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started![edit]

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 19:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]



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) 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

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) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

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) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

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) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

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) 22:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

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) 23:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

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) 22:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

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) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

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) 02:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

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) 08:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign 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] 20:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

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] 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RefDesk Question[edit]

Just in case you haven't seen it, I left an answer to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Influence_of_the_Yom_Kippur_War_on_the_US_military. Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Lawrencema. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Spencer B. Akin[edit]

Information icon Hello, Lawrencema. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spencer B. Akin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon![edit]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous election announcement[edit]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon[edit]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawrencema/Archive_1&oldid=1182889339"