User talk:BusterD/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:BusterD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		As my personal thank you for your enrichment of the project with your very many good article contributions and your unfailingly sensible input in discussions at every level, please accept this exquisitely tasteful, but distinctly unmilitary, barnstar.  Roger Davies talk 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

œ^™ 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was just editing for consistency with the article. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

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) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1572088 lifted or expired. Request handled by: TNXMan 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

IP exempt flag given by Roger Davies, see below. TNXMan 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I've never been blocked before, so this was a valuable new experience. I'll certainly do the reading. I'm very surprised a user I warned four times yesterday was in my ip range. I guess this must happen. Was this a sort of fishing expedition? BusterD (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It happens; I was autoblocked myself last month :) Sorry about the pompous wording of the "I have granted you" notice. It's generated by a template.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

My apologies, I must have been in a rush when I added it so I did not add the full details. I will do that now.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you feel that the Buckner article is worthy of featuring on the ACW portal. I hope other Civil War buffs will enjoy it as well. As with all the articles I edit extensively, Buckner's will remain on my watchlist, so I eagerly await whatever improvements you may find as a result of reading the newly-discovered bio.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm thinking John J. Crittenden will be my Christmas project. Not a soldier in the ACW, certainly, but played an important role in the politics of the war. Know any editors who might be of assistance in reviewing that article? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the Crittendens deserve better treatment. I'm very interested in the development of military staff during the 19th century, and lots of the civvies are fascinating folks too. Always feel free to call on me if I can be of service. I didn't choose to weigh in on the FA discussion directly because of my relative inexperience with FA process, but I'm dipping my toes in a bit. I hope you don't mind if I do some minor text edits on SBB to lessen the "He did this, he did that, and he did the other thing" tone. Needs some tweaking, but I didn't want to spoil your run at featured status (stability is important). BusterD (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd be my hero if you could help out with some referencing. Right now the part that needs refs is the fun part: The Civil War! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about it, or is real life getting in the way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I had considered quoting you directly from the talk page, but decided to rough the point in, and let you guys decide how best to phrase it. Thought it had nice symmetry/irony, the source being provided by Valkyrie Red. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony was delicious. :-) I appreciate that you and North Shoreman entered the discussion because I was starting to feel like Don Quixote. This is certainly the most persistent guy I have encountered in Wikipedia. I have thought about offering the suggestion that he (and his partner in crime, Bill the Cat) work on articles that need expansion and citations rather than tinkering around in the information boxes of long-established articles, but I believe his understanding of Wikipedia authoring philosophy and his general depth of Civil War knowledge are pretty limited.

I almost considered using that Military Review article (and its citations) as a way of improving the article decisive victory, but I have decided that I have enough headaches without attracting attention from people who are experts in other wars. My attempts to discuss this concept at the military history task force level did not turn out well. There are just too many people who say "Everyone knows what decisive victory means, so do not challenge my use of it." When I pushed back and asked them what they think it means, I got accused of obsessive behavior. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this vandalism? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

so you seriously think Google hits indicate reliable sources? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at issue (well actually, it's an issue for discussion). What is at issue is bold changes made in Wikipedia space by a relatively new user with zero discussion. This sort of edit will and should draw eyes. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that not the issue? I fixed an error and you reverted it not because you disagree but because of who I am. You actually reinserted an error. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change because you reinserted it without discussion on talk (a common mistake for new users), not because you're a new user. Please don't ignore the discussion part of bold, revert, discuss. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But you just said you reverted it because I was a "relatively new user". I'm not making this stuff up. But why don't you discuss it? I have explained my rationale for the change. You've provided only a purely bureaucratic (and imaginary. Wikipedia:BRD is an essay) reason for reverting me. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can choose to ignore portions of what I wrote if it pleases you. I wrote: "relatively new user with zero discussion." BRD is more than an essay, it's one of the ways things actually work around here. You can continue to proclaim how "correct" you are and insert your changes, and I (and untold others) will keep reverting them. Then you'll be forced to make your case in talk space, not editing a live page. This isn't about who's correct; it's more about who can support and sustain their case. Those who can support their case are more likely to get their sustained say in pagespace. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why my edit was incorrect beyond pure procedure. You made an edit that said Google results indicate reliable sources exist. I find the fact that you're okay with that amusing enough that I don't really care about editing the page anymore. You want to include that laughable fallacy just to spite me? Great... it's your call. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss content of any wikipedia page, you should have the discussion in plain sight, on the proper talk page, not hidden from public view on one user's talk. I'm not interested in debating this myself; I find the change relatively unimportant. I've already explained my motivation satisfactorily, and apologized for my incorrect use of the reversion of vandalism tool. What I do find important is your desire to belabor this side issue, and refusal to discuss the change itself in the proper location. I placed a welcome message on your talk page with links to helpful information about the pedia; you chose to revert that welcome as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you see, I accidentally hit the wrong button. But now you're on the record supporting this silly idea that Google results are reliable sources. This is what you could for making edits purely because of what you think procedure is. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take further discussion where it properly belongs. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is my first time on Wikipedia in over a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.218.219 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the warning to the ip address talk page, which according to this list of contributions was used to vandalize the User:Drmies talk page, as mentioned in the warning applied. You may not be the contributor, but someone at the listed ip address seems to have vandalized the page. The warning message offers the opportunity for you to create an account so that you needn't be bothered with this sort of group-applied warning. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was considering my sins of commission — as it were — when the comparison of Wikipedia to social networking websites came to mind and an idea occurred to me: How about creating a setup whereby people — who are signed in — could, through a graphical user interface, issue (for lack of better terminology) commendations and demerits. I know that something similar to this exists in the barn star wiki-code. Anyway, this idea just occurred to me and since I respect your opinion to a high degree, I decided to seek it out.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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) 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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) 02:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: George H. Steuart (brigadier general) BusterD, Thanks for the encouragement, and for taking the time to review the article. All your suggestions seem to be good ones and are well taken. I will do what I can to improve the article. My main problem is lack of source material - most of the information I can find on him is just the odd snippet here and there. It may not be enough to get the piece to good article status, and I also lack access to a good old-fashioned brick and mortar library. Re: Neutrality: You are right about the family interest, though I hope that this does not compromise the neutral pov which I have tried to maintain throughout. Asteuartw (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Inconsistent citation formatting is a problem here. You cite the books with "ref name", but your online sources seem formatted haphazardly. The 48th PA site is a particularly bad example.

Please forgive my inexperience but cd you possibly show me how this ref shd be formatted? - thanks in advance - Asteuartw (talk)

Has been blocked again for editwarring and disruption. I've been discouraged from calling the user's edits vandalism, but I think some questionable edits were intended to arouse attention, hence pointy, hence actual vandalism. That said, when the user returns, I believe we should seek a content area ban, preventing the user from editing the infoboxes or talk pages of many articles in the ACW content cluster. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Happy New Year. Thanks for your help. I think this guy is simply trying to make a mark of his own on some important article and is probing around to find a gap in the line, so to speak. Although I find these edits annoying, I am not sure that they sink to the level of actual vandalism. I have never participated in blocking a user, so I will leave it to you to exercise your judgment about edit warring and disruptions. I wish as an alternative that the guy would take all of his energy and put it into doing something useful, such as improving many of the hundreds of unfinished ACW articles. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm is not balanced by an adequate understanding of sources, citations, and NPOV. And he seems to have no Civil War references other than Google. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

I don't see how this was reverting vandalism. It seems like you reverted a good faith edit made by a partisan in an edit war. No? Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This user has moved from mere provocation and disruption to acts of actual vandalism. Within minutes of my reversion you diff above, I posted at AN/I asking for a more objective view, admitting my bias. I later conceded in that thread I'd over-reacted, and why. I've better explained my rationale in my message to User:Hlj, reprinted in the thread above. I'm not inclined to apologize to this particular dedicated disruptor, especially since now, in my opinion, the user has moved onto socking. Over time, I've consulted three separate uninvolved admins, in each case the user was blocked. I've run out of good faith with this particular disruptor, who seems dedicated primarily to wasting the time of several content-area editors. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your admirable work in thoroughly checking through Richard Henry Savage the several times that it took for me to address the problems in the article. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think I'm a bit fuzzy with review template and exactly what the standards are. I'm going to work a couple of my own pages to GA review to better understand the process. With no disrespect to you, I've seen users turn in nominations when the article was in a wide variety of condition (start to B-class); I'm not sure whether folks have a bare minimum in mind. Thank you for your excellent work on the page; I've long been curious about Savage. BusterD (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank yo for your imput on above article. I have set the category issue for the time being to let it cool off, as you suggested. I had added a map which was appropiate to the section discussing the relationship between NY and NJ the later being more extensively in it. This image has subsequently been removed by editor 69, etc with a "cute" rationale, which I consider to be hostile editing. I ask that you please monitor this situation as I do not wish to engage in an "war", especially with someone who will not hold a discourse about the subject/article.Djflem (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You inserted a map of New Jersey next to a map of New York, both highlighting the same location with the same info box for both. I said it was silly to have both maps. That is not hostile editing, it is silly to have two maps of the same location with the same info box with the only difference being which state is highlighted in white, so I removed the extra map.

And I have held a discourse on the subject on the talk page so it's not fair to accuse me of that, and I took up your offer to bring in the third (and fourth as it turned out) opinion on the subject.

I don't wish to be blocked so I won't be changing the map back to New York (the state the island is actually located in and the one used on the Statue of Liberty article itself) because I know that if I do you'll change it back and continue to insult me by continuing to call my edits vandalism and hostile when what you are doing amount to the exact same thing I am. Hello pot, meet kettle. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of you editors have shown some sense and maturity by taking a rest for a day or so. Good for both of you, in spite of your disagreement. I have a suggestion: the section of the page which refers to these matters is woefully under-cited. Why don't the two of you work on adding citation to the section? You both have strong opinions. Use your passion to build the pagespace. Working together the two of you might find a wording which satisfies both of you and conveys the reasons why it's a confusing issue to others less well-read. Explaining controversial details is an arena where mutual disagreement might serve the whole pedia... I've seen it work where editors were trying to see the others' argument; this is why I believe citing the appropriate pagespace section would be a healthy start. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. You're right that the software handles unblocks automatically, though sometimes (rarely) there are issues with residual IP blocks that need manually removing. If VR notes on their talkpage that they still can't edit, feel free to ping me and I'll sort it out. Hopefully they'll learn from the experience; you've given some good advice on their talkpage that they'd do well to take very seriously. It's quite possible the next block would be indef (a topic ban might be considered, but given their limited interests this would amount to a de facto site ban anyway).

Hope you didn't mind my comment about not calling their edits vandalism. I know only too well how frustrating it is to deal with an editor who's on a crusade and will not listen to advice, but "vandalism" is something of a power-word and one best used with care :) All the best anyway, and thank you for your efforts in trying to help VR. If you need any further admin intervention, you know where my talkpage is. EyeSerene^talk 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You will likely come across my revison to the section of the Statue of Liberty article regarding Liberty Island. I hope you will not find this causing conflict. After extensive work on the latter, it seemed inappropriate to not make achange to the directly related section, and to re-direct to main article. As written the section was a mess: no context, no choronology, no continuity, underreferenced, with wrong dates and spelling (New Netherland w/ an s? 1649? which hat was that pulled out of.) I trust my very very dry version to be satisfactory.Djflem (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Must admit I was miffed at being called disruptive. But actually I guess I can be to people who have certain agendas which are borne out by facts, or are territorial about some articles they don't want touched. Nonetheless, I did get around to creating a stuc for the above. Needs work, but it's a start. Thanks for your tips.Djflem (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

... but no thanks. There are only two possible outcomes -- I could win or I could lose and neither is acceptable.

But ya got my vote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too... but I am more into the politics than the military aspects of things. Cheers --JimWae (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was a company grade officer at the battle so his notoriety lies in the fact that he was seriously wounded at the battle and had he not survived, history may have lost a great Supreme Court Justice. I'd like to develop this section a little more and see if it stands up better to scrutiny at that point. I know the battlefield very well and have walked it many times. It was small in terms of conflict size but the ramifications were far larger. SBmeier (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)SBmeier

Never mind, on reconsideration, I think we are in agreement so I put this on the page dealing with the battle itself. There was already a reference to Holmes and his future role so added something about Lt. (& Congressman) Henry Livermore Abbott as well. SBmeier (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)SBmeier

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I looked at this article and the vandalism happened in the next couple edits after I made my change. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope sorry I usually don't read through the whole article when I make AWB edits because I am looking for specific things. I check to make sure that it didn't do anything obviously wrong and soemtimes I see vandalism but not always. Even if I had checked first I don't know that I would have caught this though.--Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about nominating yourself for Military History project coordinator in the next election cycle in March? You are around all the time, you're dedicated and care deeply about pagespace. I trust you as a leader. Readup if you're at all interested. BusterD (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good day sir! Apperciate you thought of me, but no. The innerworkings of the pedia have never really appealed to me. I'm very much a specialist, dealing mainly with ACW bios, and MILHIST needs generalists who edit across all human endeavors to continue politics by other means... You sir better fit that ideal than I, and if you like you'll have my support for your own campaign, as our dealings have always been pleasant, thoughtful, incisive, and very helpful. Though as a non-member I don't think I can vote directly. As I'm sure you noticed the little ACW cluster doesn't get involved into these areas by and large, and in my time editing I have grown to see why. The article space is where I belong. Kresock (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this is off your beaten path, but I'd like you to consider running for coordinator in the Military History project elections in March. I consider you the natural leader of this content area, Tom and the Jims notwithstanding. Think about it before refusing... BusterD (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Somehow I missed this message on my user page until now. Sorry for the delay in responding. I have never taken an official leadership or administrative role in Wikipedia. My topic of interest is very tightly focused and I have no desire to extend that to military history in general. I also resist participating in most formal review processes; although I sometimes provide review comments to others, I never encourage people to nominate my own articles for review or evaluation. So I don't think I am a very good candidate for this position. But thanks for thinking of me. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I came across Portal talk:American Civil War/to do, which you created, and noticed that it was (essentially) empty and not linked from any page. Is the page abandoned/obsolete and, if it is, should it be kept? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful eye. I've requested speedy deletion as sole contributor. BusterD (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've deleted the page as per your request. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but you just wasted your time composing that "well crated" message on my talk page. All that message was trying to say was stop editing the Battle of Gettysburg article otherwise I'll use my contacts to ban you unfairly on "edit warring". I'm not falling for it and newer research is showing us that Gettysburg was indeed a decisive victory. Vicksburg fell to the same label and so will it. Good luck with your arguments. Happy editing--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't regret carefully composing the messages I left on User:Valkyrie Red's talk page. Now it appears the user is canvassing to gain consensus. I'll say this: at least the user is trying to seek consensus. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The June 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) 18:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 21:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I actually meant to split it about six weeks ago, but got hung up; I am now working on the Union page to move each section to the format that I have already instated for "A". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IcarusPhoenix (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos, Buster. I needed another opinion, and while yours was welcome, the fact Hal was referring to an "us" as the determining body what goes on that wikipedia article made me seek an impartial judge. The animation was the culmination of what I learned while lucky enough to study under Thomas O'Connor, professor emeritus at Boston College and one of the foremost authorities on the American Civil War. So I've instead distilled the highlights and added them to the article proper, which seems to have gone much more seemlessly. :) See you on the battlefields. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)