User talk:Otr500

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

Edits to this page[edit]

I would like to ask that comments to this page conform to the following style as examples; First person to comment with no indentions.

Second person to comment like this.
Third person to comment like this.
Fourth person to comment like this.
Second person with additional comments.
Fourth person with additional comments.
  • This provides a better flow in comments and extended comments do not end up against the right side. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)







Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano[edit]

I noticed the cite check flag you dropped. could I ask which reference you are questioning so I can fix it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page. Let me know if what you find is consistent with what I found. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I added a couple of links under external links but I don't have to fix them all right now Ill go back and do it later. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem edit[edit]

Hi, can you take another look at this edit it appears to have added some characters to the end of reference 3. Is it some code for the publication or just a slip of the finger? Keith D (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I am still laughing at that slip. I was getting my grandson something to eat and the only thing I can figure is that he wanted to help edit. Otr500 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"African American" vs. "African-American" vs. "African–American"[edit]

The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part.

Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash).

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's long-standing naming convention concerning African Americans, please start a centralized discussion instead of leaving similar messages on the Talk pages of many articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and advice. I do not have a problem with any naming convention of course I really didn't know there was one concerning African Americans. I guess it just takes some figuring out; "African-American naming convention", and "the naming convention concerning African Americans". So where would African American Civil War Memorial place in all of this?
I have somewhat of a different view. I have Irish ancestry but regardless of that I am American. To me, no matter what the sentence placement, I prefer to use Irish-American when the need arises. Although only a vague hope it would be a monumental time when there would be less need (other than historic) to micro define ethnic groups, that are all considered American, and to eradicate ethnocentrism. Concerning your advice I will reply that there are several reasons I did what I did that is certainly acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I need not go any farther because your reply was sufficient to cover my questions and or concerns. There is a discussion going on at WP:Manual of Style#dash drafting. Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No solution[edit]

Just when someone makes sense of something and appears to know what is going on a bomb is dropped. I thought what Shabazz said was valid, although there was no reference as to where the information was obtained, so I referenced this (here);
  • Concerning titles please comment on these quotes;
  • "The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part."
  • "Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash)." Otr500 (talk) 8:54 am, 29 May 2011, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)
This actually made sense but a reply indicates that it is false meaning the whole discussion was flawed especially since it appears not one person has a real idea what should be, or is an appropriate us of hyphen, en-dashes, or en-dashes. The reply was;
  • Neither is discussing the English language as it actually exists anywhere. Both are efforts to create a dogmatic Newspeak, and if both are genuine quotes from our talk pages (neither shows up on searching), the editor responsible should be ignored until he goes to play on the Newspeak Wikipedia, with its much simpler Manual of Style: "Hyphens are ungood." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:44 pm, 29 May 2011, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
So much for figuring things out and certainly for "...but I think they've been straightened out for the most part." Otr500 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Guy Gabledon[edit]

I just noticed the edit you made to Guy Gabeldon removing the retrieved as dates from the external links. I am not going to revert it but I do not think that this edit was helpful. Regardless of what the "Standard" is for external links I have found that it is frequently helpful to have the retireved date on links (citation or otherwise) especially when those links are using the archiveurl parameters and the rules do allow it. I also think that the comment you left on the talk page was meant for another article. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Have to agree with Kumioko on this one. In regard to PFC Guy Gabledon MoH nomination, I can't understand it either, I believe that it is all politics. I have worked with various organizations to have his medal upgraded to the MoH, I even recently wrote to Pre. Obama, but nothing so far. Another case that comes to mind is that of Maj. Herman Bottcher. I once spoke to two former soldiers who served in different units with him and they both agreed that Bottcher was the bravest man that they ever knew. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I can see your point Kumioko. Would I be correct that these dates would have no actual importance to the casual reader? Using archiveurl parameters while still having some form of article consistency, and at the same time following guidelines that appear to have consensus since not being contested, could be accomplished using "hidden comments" that would suffice to satisfy all. We can go this route, unless you and Tony have valid reasoning in having these dates visible on the article page, in which case we can seek a guideline change. I added back the dates per above, if I did it correctly, so tell me what you think? Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that would be ok although I don't think I would invest much time in going through the articles to make the dates into hidden comments. They really don't harm anything by being there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It is actually the first article that I recall seeing this on. I don't intend on looking for articles formatted as such but if I run across any I may do this. You are right and it probably doesn't really hurt anything ----but---- it is in the guidelines. I realize that this may not be that important to some but it is just the way I am.
When I make edits I look for potential improvements that will enhance the article. When there are guidelines I really try to observe them. Articles I start I have resolved to begin at start and not stub class when possible and I do not want to begin or even work on articles that I think are never going to be anything but a stub. This does not mean I will not make mistakes as that will be a given, but I really think, even though consensus can actually change daily, that some form of consistency does make a better encyclopedia. I do like "retrieval dates", and especially "access dates" that are somewhat current, as this means someone followed a link and this means it is obviously a good one. Otr500 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)[edit]

Hello! In this edit to List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army), you added a ref name of "Chief of Ordnance" with two new entries on the list, but no source was included. Could you revisit the article and add the source you intended? Thanks~ - Salamurai (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the delay but worked 107 hours so have been busy. If not called out I will look at this tomorrow because I do see I also need to correct the box. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done and repaired another while I was at it. Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration[edit]

US-NARA-Seal.svg
United States National Archives WikiProject
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stub tags[edit]

When adding a stub tag to an article such as Populus heterophylla, please remember to put it at the end after everything except inter-wiki links (per WP:LAYOUT): it saves the time of the stub-sorter who otherwise has to move the tag to the right place while stub-sorting it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Luis Barbero[edit]

Hi Otr500. I've replied on the talkpage of Luis Barbero regarding the issues you raised. Hope this helps! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for updating the EOBR article. I was planning on expanding it but I started driving local and got burnt out on article editing and as you can see it has been sitting around for years with no work. --ErgoSumtalktrib 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. I plan to do more on several others but worked 89 hours last week. After 17 years I sort of went local, in the oilfield industry, but actually get paid more when I don't drive. Stand-by time, with oilfield exemptions and a 24 hour restart, make it nice. Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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] 00:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012[edit]

USRD Newsletter header.svg
Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Imzadi 1979  22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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 projectwhat coordinators do) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


On names of US lighthouses[edit]

Lighthouses in the US are invariably named "placename Light", not "Lighthouse", by the governing authorities. Please at least discuss this with others before overriding this convention. Also, the cut-and-paste move of Sabine Pass Light creates a disruption in the article history. If you cannot accomplish a proper move yourself, use Wikipedia:Requested moves to ask an administrator to do it for you. Thank you for your work. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) I answered at Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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


Kurdish separatism in Iran campaignbox[edit]

Hello Zirguezi, since you were active on the Kurdish Iranian topic in the past - i would like to notify you the following: Recently an article Kurdish separatism in Iran was forced a split into new Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan; In addition, the campaignbox was as well split [1]: from template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran into the new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict . I proposed to remerge the campaignboxes via a community consensus, with the rationale that the split of articles was made artificially and without any real need (the user who did it, had wanted to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, but when failed - he started a "competitive" article). You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_3#Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish.E2.80.93Iranian_conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

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


Reasons for lack of editing[edit]

I have slowed down editing on Wikipedia as lack of edits will show. The reasons are what can be referred to as "mythical":

  • 1)- Guardian editors; These are mythical editors with good intentions but if they alone do not like something in an article, even if relevant and sourced, it will be reverted, resulting in unnecessary complications.
  • 2)- What I call a Cabal even if I am assured they do not exist so are mythical. I have had the displeasure of meeting such a mythical group (I may have only been dreaming) that I (my personal opinion) feel can be humorously referred to as "The Knights of NPOV Cabal" or "The Never Finishes an Article Cabal". It is my opinion, and with considerable proof, they (if they were to exist) rename articles in violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, only creating a majority of stub articles with many being misnamed. Pages of evidence to the contrary will result in pages of verbiage, and any attempt to change this will be a battle. Some editors just want to edit. Sure, knowing there is irrefutable evidence, I "could" battle through the process but finding the Wikipedia mythical room is complicated.
  • If you are some of these editors, that belong to the mythical secret project Cabal that does not exist, you know who you are. I know, that you know, that you are wrong. "If" I were to get the time and will to "do battle", I would even try to expose these editors if only you were not so mythical. This would only be after enough editors (OMG would that also be a Cabal?) have had enough of something that is presented as not being actual, while in reality really is, yet is referred to as mythical because Wikipedia protocol is to deny it, and attempts to do something about it is complicated. There is not even a real Wikipedia protocol to attempt to deal with naming conventions of projects gone awry, that blatantly disregard Wikipedia even in article naming (as a group), to try to address this without a long term battle. If something is wrong it should not be so hard to correct without mythical editorial bloodshed.
  • See; Even trying to explain it is comical so there is really nothing short of confrontation that can resolve it. I may not be editing articles but I feel better. "IF" someone takes offense at any of this, or tries to make an issue of any, OR becomes tired of some of the same things and would like a change, let me know (tag it) or join in, as I can provide links to substantiate any of the above "mythical" information. If you are one of the "mythical" editors misnaming articles all over Wikipedia, and would like to report me, this would be a good reason to "do battle" to expose you. Since you are "mythical" I can not imagine how you could possibly be insulted. My mythical thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Beauregard Parish Jail caption2.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)




The Center Line: Fall 2013[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979

Request for comment[edit]

Hello Otr500, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive[edit]

Wiki letter w.svg

Hello Otr500,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 125639 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning. Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. Opt-out Instructions by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Added name to list.


A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar for de-orphaning articles
Thank you for your efforts to de-orphan articles, Although we are unsuccessful to make a dent on the huge backlog, but your efforts to de-orphan articles are very much appreciated. Happy editing! -- From: Jim Carter onbehalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
My first barnstar: Thanks.

Redirect[edit]

Hello. I've undid your blanking of Magnolia Lane Plantation because you didn't give a valid reason in the edit summary. If you wish to delete the redirect, please nominate the redirect under one of the speedy deletion criterion or nominate the article at RfD. Also, you don't have to sign your edit summaries with four ~s. Thanks. KJ «Click Here» 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as I did not intend to leave a blanked page but fell asleep while adding content to the article. I removed the redirect again but not in contest of your edit but in order to add content and correctly list the article. I did not know about not signing the edit summary as there is insufficient liking on this information and I just never saw it so thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)



Proposed deletion of The Lacassane Company[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article The Lacassane Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this company notable?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carter Plantation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (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) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pillow Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clifton Place. 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) 09:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)\

Green tickY: Done

Talk:Sabine Pass Light‎[edit]

In Talk:Sabine Pass Light‎ you have made a move request with an initial edit of 9,264 bytes (which can be seen as an addition to your contributions to last years request where you contributed over 16,000 bytes). Which means that you have contributed over 20,000 characters (at 80 characters a line that is about 250 lines), about 10 pages worth of A4, to the question of what is the best name for the article.

Given the above, I think you should consider if your most recent posting to the page, which at 4,007 bytes (about 8 times the size of the posting by Nyttend) was on reflection a wise course of action. Do you think that reply of about 2 pages of A4 was necessary or helpful (as a closing conscientious admin is expected to read it). Perhaps in future you will consider the advise in WP:TALK "Be concise", as very long answers tend to be counter-productive.

-- PBS (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It probably won't matter but: You might have noticed that in the initial request, after I posted intent and waited 7 days to change the name (I screwed it up), I changed the name. I worked on an article that sat since 2006 and the name was changed back because a project chose another name. An RM was started, I had stated my case, another edited did a better job even with additional persuasive comments, and 6 opposes after that is when I began to wonder what in the world was going on. I still edited the article and made improvements and, it appeared to me, to show me who could and couldn't edit on Wikipedia, my edits were reverted and incorporated as a glorified stub. That was enough. I had edits revered (changed), was told there was a not a snowball chance the name would be changed, and so I waited over a year. I thought I would try again so I presented my case. The RM said not to be vague so I put a lot into trying to be persuasive the first time. My one reply (oppose) was like the last--- "If you disagree with the naming convention, try to get the convention changed.".
I know that "votes" are not suppose to be counted, just what evidence is presented, but in the real world it seems they are related. This time (day 7) is 1 with support and one against, = no consensus.
To tell you the truth I just figured, since nobody had taken interest in 6 days (now 7), I had listed the RM in several places in accordance to Wikipedia policy, and I was going to be working all day with the last RM was closed the way it was anyway, that there was not going to be any chance of it going through. The one case I saw where a name change was allowed it was noted this was an exception. I had resigned to continue not to work on lighthouse articles so just vented.
What I didn't know, and just found out, was that one "proof of name" that is accepted according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) was the GNIS that lists Sabine Pass Lighthouse (historical) (1980 and 1983) here as a consistent past and present name. All I presented, and I didn't find this information. Go figure right?
Anyway I do not plan to edit lighthouse articles now, and maybe not in the future, so they (the lighthouse project) can name everything "light" if they want to. I "had" interest in all lighthouses but to have to battle so much for something so simple and clear on one article, it is just not worth it. Wikipedia can just have 20 year old stub "light" articles and I will just work on other NRHP, and history articles.
I do so appreciate your investment of time and advice. Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Your reply which is double my initial suggestion, indicates to me that you do not "get" what I mean. You can make your point much more succinctly. Verbose off! See here, here and here -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordinals in USAF articles[edit]

Since you have participated in past discussions on the use of ordinals in U.S. military articles, you may be interested in the move request I started at Talk:132d Fighter Wing. —innotata 04:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On making military unit articles more consistent[edit]

Here's an expansion on my reply at Talk:132d Fighter Wing, with some stuff about what I'm working on. First, you've been able to describe why we should use what happen to be the common names, and how we follow or don't quite follow official usage quite well. I definitely agree with you that we can make improvements as we go. I also am not for making standardising moves on a blanket basis, so I'd support doing this with classes of articles or individual articles (hence my current move request for Fighter Wings only, all of which I checked). And ordinals aren't the only renames some need, I'm sure. Anyway, as SchreiberBike, who has done a lot of work on standardising style in the past, has expressed interest in working on ordinals in U.S. military units, I'll probably keep track of discussions on U.S. military units, but step out myself. Actually, I came across this matter while working on standardising and correcting articles on other countries' militaries, which I'm more interested in contributing to, since there's less about them on Wikipedia. I started this effort because I'd like to start expanding our coverage of units, formations, and personnel in countries like Afghanistan and Ukraine, which I hope will be useful for rather obvious reasons. I've learned about military organisation and how to write about military topics, corrected plenty of misinformation, expanded and created articles with the basics, and so on; I found out about the incredible story of Irene Morales while improving categorisation (and take a look at the article I wrote on her), as well as creating Sikkim Scouts, and (earlier) 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France). So that's exactly what I'm doing. Anyway, thank you for all your work on style but more importantly on content. —innotata 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can take a little time (or SchreiberBike) to insert content and some of the references you listed in the 132d Fighter Wing article.
The "vote" (if you will) is not in yet and does not have to go the way of logic. I have seen closures that use the rationale that references do point out the reasoning to allow a move. I "just" found out I have an early call to work in the morning and may--or may not-- get back early. If I do I will look at that article next. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Copying from U.S. military sites[edit]

I thought I'd let you know it is allowed to copy or closely paraphrase text from U.S. military websites and publications, as long as you attribute it (see Template:Citation-attribution). U.S. federal government works have no copyright so the only issue is plagiarism. That said, it probably isn't the best idea in most circumstances, due to neutrality and the different style of writing, etc. So, you can choose to add attribution, or remove the text where you see it. I leave it to your judgment, just letting you know this choice exists. —innotata 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes--and attribution should be clear. Copy/paste is actually direct plagiarism (word-for-word) in the absence of copyvio or attribution and not good editing. To swap mid-sentence from normal practices of editing to copying or copy/pasting text just should not be done. An editor (my beliefs) should not "mix it up" within a sentence, as this allows a lot of latitude to creep in OR. Reality is that all content on Wikipedia is a form of plagiarism as it is OR if not referenced somewhere. The difference is to use content not "directly" copied word-for-word from a source to blatantly show direct plagiarism.
Using This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency, in the reference section is not a blanket authorization to copy/paste right?. The template you referenced can be placed at the end of a sentence, lacking any other "source specific template", to show "sentences or a paragraph that incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright". It can, and I think should be, placed within ref tags.
I do have a method to my madness. Content on many of these article were added to by an editor that has been banned and some not active, thus comments on the talk page will go unanswered. I do not have time to stop, investigate these things to determine this, correct every instance, then take the next step of contacting the editor, so I hid the content, in lieu of sending it to the talk page, so I can look at it later. I hope I clarified my actions and I do appreciate your comments. Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You can either have attribution at the end of an article incorporating some copied text, or after each sentence that has some elements copied. Personally I prefer the second, but giving attribution once is more popular and some people prefer that; it's customary for the USAF HRA and such sources we've copied from a lot before. I totally agree, I just wanted to point out that it would work to keep some of the copied text if you decide to. —innotata 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Otr500 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
IF that works without being contested thus far I can use the time to look at other areas and come back to any "direct" copying as I do not like it even if it is easier. Night-- Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2014 (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! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Norton (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] in 1993, and with [[Jackie Chan]] in 1997, [[Inside Kung Fu]], MA Training published 1988 to 2000), Martial Arts & Combat Sports (published 1999 to 2002), and Martial Arts & Combat Sports.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
  • None submitted
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Orphanage

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interview) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done: Answered interview questions. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

You might be interested in the 12-article move discussion at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014, since it raises the same question on which you had previously given a fact- and policy-based rationale in very similar requested moves discussions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Italian goat breeds[edit]

Hi! I see you've made a change in a large number of articles to the number of Italian goat breeds of limited distribution for which the Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia maintains a registro anagrafico, or non-genealogical herd book. Unfortunately you seem to have miscounted them. There are forty-three, as can be clearly seen in this document, which lists them along with the eight national breeds for which it maintains a stricter genealogical herdbook. Would you be kind enough to fix those articles? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the message. I will not make any more changes until a determination can be reached. I will list my reasoning and we can go from there. The reference I was going by, and the one you referenced, Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia, states: It maintains genealogical herdbooks for seventeen principal indigenous breeds of sheep and eight goat breeds, and also maintains less stringent herdbooks for forty-two autochthonous sheep breeds and thirty-three goat breeds of limited distribution.. There is a goat count in a reference that is in conflict with a direct link that states thirty-three, there may be a reason why the total number wasn't used. I went by the information on a link, that appears to be the authority that maintains the registry, and the provided inline link in the article. What is plainly stated without adding anything up is the number thirty-three. In other words the count is plainly stated. There is a list and the count does add up to forty-three. Questions would be:
  1. Why does the Wikipedia article, that makes it appear to be of authority, use thirty-three when there are plainly a count of forty-three breeds listed?
  2. Is minor breeds not counted or is there some breeds that are extinct?
  3. Is the information in that link that is on the article and now that you and I have referenced again (the authority on the subject) wrong?
  4. Is the information on that link from them or has some editor corrupted Wikipedia with false information?
I will look at this, and I hope you will also, but unless you are stating the authority that is listed as an in-line link is flawed, or they can't count, we need to come to a conclusion before we make any changes or revert what is stated so very much plainly in the registry authority.
I am going down the list and as you can see I am adding alternate names, any synonyms I can find, other common names, moving names up to the beginning of the lead, and looking for other references. Maybe we can determine why the count of the breeds listed does not agree with the number as stated in the registry authority.
NOTE: Some of the names listed in the link you provided might (possibly) be duplicates or alternate names. My rationale for this would be the breed Valgerola listed in the reference. According to the article Orobica (one of the eight) they are the same. If that is true then the bottle of beers on the wall has just dropped to 42.
    • IF** what is stated at that link is wrong then that MUST be corrected as it is very VERY misleading and is very much splattered on pretty much EVERY single article about Italian goats. We need another link (or more) to clarify this. I am sure you will agree about this? I trust you will look into this and help me straighten it out. Otr500 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toggenburg (goat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Werdenberg. 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) 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bryde's whale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Bryde's whale''' or '''Bryde's whale complex''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|r|uː|d|ə}{{respell|BREW|də}}) putatively comprises two species of [[rorqual]] [[baleen

Green tickY: Done


  • in Bryde's whales from the central western North Pacific and Baja California Peninsula. SC/56/PF15). ''Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission''.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jens Voigt[edit]

Thanks for picking it up on GA, take your time and Merry Christmas :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 00:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. are you and/or any other editor(s) going to be available for any discussion or do you just want a decision and deal with it then? Otr500 (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be available for discussion :) I think Lugnuts and User:7&6=thirteen will be interested as well. Where will the discussion take place? (I'm new to GA) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose Talk:Jens Voigt would be more appropriate so I will reply there. Otr500 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I read your critique so far, very good thanks, I'll bring the changes necessary in a few days, I'm pretty busy at the moment :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 03:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand and there is Christmas around the corner. Otr500 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being so slow! I'm moving at snail pace, I have a hectic schedule right now. I should be more available after 1st January. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be taking a wikibreak, I think you'd better make a decision whether it is a good article or not, as nobody else is stepping in to help. Happy New Year :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 07:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If you agree with concerns I listed you could have just removed the nomination and I would have closed it as withdrawn. I will close it later today. Otr500 (talk) 08:58, 6 Janua

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paterson, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


The Center Line: Winter 2015[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script[edit]

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

  • This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info. This reply is to give you some un-technical information. I have been editing a while and it appears there are two specific types of editors; computer literate and those in my class then there are those new to the project. When I research a topic I think that links to other articles are fundamental to being afforded the best possible experience in assisting that research and to me a problem with orphan articles is it produces a stumbling block. I did not know about the script and don't really know how to use them. This does not mean I will not try to learn to use something that is helpful. You stated that only two were using it and I see in a reply that it was being inquired about. Debugging (I hate bugs) and testing sounds good but not many will use it if it can not be found.
  • Recognition is a good thing (as seen above) and my first and thus far only Barnstar is for de-orphaning articles. I think you deserve one for your efforts in trying to improve the Wikipedia experience for editors. From the comment I saw you "may" have a third user so I would also suggest debugging but also "continue to develop" as BLD scoring seems a good idea.
  • Can these "scripts" not be placed somewhere on the project page in a "Scripts" section so editors can find them? Otr500 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2015[edit]

The Center Line header.svg
Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychological resilience[edit]

Hi, I saw the comments you made on Talk:Psychological resilience and I have made some major changes to the article. I am inviting you to review my changes and see what I can do further. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I will look at it in the next couple of days. I have been working extremely long hours and want to be able to be refreshed. Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Cuckolds Light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First-order (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) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Green tickY Done

Please take a look at ...[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Support_or_oppose and just above it. It concerns the bold edit you made to WP:Harass.

BTW, nice to meet you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and nice to meet you as well. I have been working 12 hour days this week but will likely be off this weekend and will be able to look things over more closely. Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

High drive?[edit]

Hi, can you help clear up a few things about high drive tractors?

  • Why is the drive sprocket forward of the rear idler? I see the advantage of lifting the ground-running sprocket up off the ground shocks, but this was long established for military chassis with either front or rear drive. Why did Caterpillar move it towards the middle? Is that a defining part of high drive?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andy, Thanks for your message. I had to stop and save where I was at because I had not cleared my cache in a long time and had too many browsers and tabs open, even for my gaming laptop, and it was freezing up. I just got logged back on.
Can you be specific of the apparent conflict so we will be on the same page? The high drive was specific to Caterpillar, inherited from both the companies that merged with it's debut, and I imagine that (haven't looked yet) under the United States patent law at the time (changed in 1994) that would have been 17 years. Until I find different any "crawler" tractors that "might" have been built with high drive before around 1990-1992? (would have to look at the high drive patent date) would have to have been under some patent agreement. There are "many" manufactures running high drive now. Now that I am back on I will look at both articles, and research some more. Thanks for your comments, --- Otr500 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA[edit]

Hi there, just want to let you know that I finally got the Leo Frank article to a GA review. Although it's after the centennial of his lynching, I thought it would be good to get a review in. Here's the review page: Talk:Leo_Frank/GA2. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)