My offline life means that I don't tend to be especially active on Wikipedia nowadays. I will check in and reply to messages and you'll see me around some articles, but content creation is not likely at the moment.
Thanks for your help there with the refs and in particular removing 'mesolithic' which I'd missed. That was added by one of a large number of sock puppets of Paul Bedson, who after being blocked for misuse of sources among other things was then community banned and has promised to continue to sock until unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy 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. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Steve, thanks for pointing out my error - I've removed this from the list. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I still have the co-ords page watchlisted, so after I saw you'd commented there so soon after commenting on the ACR, I thought I'd have a look! Ranger SteveTalk 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Waiting to see your preferred language on the ship's obsolescence so we can discuss it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, had a busy few days. I'll do it tomorrow afternoon. Ranger SteveTalk 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I'll look forward to seeing what you think is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Now you need to explain why Devastation made Warrior obsolescent as opposed to Monarch or Hercules with better armament layouts, thicker armour and more powerful guns. This is where you start down the slippery slope of trying to put it all in context and expanding the explanation until it dominates the article because it gets complicated very quickly as the ship may only be obsolescent in certain areas. Much simpler, IMO, to make a simple statement about obsolescence because it happens to every warship, one way or another. BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you about Devastation's impact and importance, but it's hard to explain and I'm honestly not sure how relevant it was for Warrior.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Be advised that I've just nominated this article at FAC if you want to continue this discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That's some really good work ... whatever reviewing or copyediting work you want to do, I'll be more than happy to support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers - I spotted several of your issues as I went through, but as you'd already highlighted them I thought I'd better leave it to Errant to make changes. I might go back and do them myself this evening though... Ranger SteveTalk 14:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that we have very different ideas about the level of detail necessary for this article as you seem to be asking for some details that strike me as picayune or trivial. Some, though, are quite valid and I'll be adding that information.
Be that as it may, you need to expand your addition of the ship's obsolescence as it only serves to tease the reader. Why that ship in particular, rather than Monarch or a central-battery ship like Hercules? And what in particular made her obsolete? Wasn't Warrior's speed; was it perhaps armor thickness or gun layout? I wanted to avoid the issue entirely as it is the natural progression of things in a technological world because a proper explanation deserves its own paragraph or perhaps a separate note.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I've expanded the restoration section as you requested, but you also wanted expansion of the museum ship section. Can you explicate in greater detail what you'd like to see there, as I'm not at all sure that I understand your intent. I can add bits about continuing the restoration with additional compartments and on-going maintenance like the docking, but that seems fairly trivial.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You recently left a review of my article. I've been through your comments and made some revisions. If you have chance I wondered if you could take another look and see if I've addressed all of your concerns! Thanks again for taking the time to look :) it has really helped improve the article. --Errant(chat!) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course - sorry it's taken me a few days. Ranger SteveTalk 09:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem :D Thanks for the support. --Errant(chat!) 10:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I believe you have significantly contributed to the battle of Arnhem article. I recently stumbled across the Hans-Peter Knaust article. My sources on him are limited but from what I have read he led a German battle group in the counter attack at Arnhem for which he was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. The picture shows him with Model, Bittrich, Student and Hamel just after his presentation of his Knight's Cross during the battle. My question to you, have you come across his name or do you have any information on him? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hiya MisterBee. I've got quite a bit on him in relation to Arnhem, particularly in 'It never snows in September' by Robert Kershaw. He had a wooden leg after an injury on the Eastern front and led a Kampfgruppen against Frost's forces holding out on the north side of Arnhem Bridge. I remember that one of the units he commanded was Panzer Regiment 'Bielefeld', which sticks because I grew up there. What sort of information are you after? The article looks kind of bare... Ranger SteveTalk 18:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed that is the issue. I have nothing. So if we can detail his actions at Arnhem would be a good start. I was unsure about him since the Battle of Arnhem article does not even mention him right now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't really done much with the Battle of Arnhem article for some time, and I'm a bit loath to to be honest. There's so much published that if you detailed it all, Wikipedia's servers would crash. There were for instance, about a dozen kampfgruppen committed in the fighting - I've only included the main characters. Detailing everyone who took part who also has a wiki article would be a nightmare.
I'll dig out my books on the battle and try to assemble a few paragraphs on Hans-Peter this weekend if you like. I'm afraid that the bio won't extend much beyond Arnhem though - I've had a quick flick through my library and Kershaw's book is the best, but as expected it is very Arnhem-centric. Ranger SteveTalk 19:01, 16 October 2013 (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!
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