User talk:Dead Mary

Hello. Sorry, I didn't see it was a redundant template. Romanian military actions in World War II in the Battle of Stalingrad article. Hard to keep up with all the latest rephrasing of list/templates etc. I was wrong to revert you after examining what you did. Please accept my apology. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its ok, but why dont you change your revert back then? I removed the template now again. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler for you to do it so the powers that be wont get upset. Sorry about that. I reverted an Administrator already and didn't want to get into a deeper pile than the one I am already in. I should just stick with writing new articles. hehe. Thanks man. You need something, give me a holler.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop adding POV to the Somalia article. The CIA is very clear that Somalia has a healthy informal economy; it says so in the opening sentence of the economy section of the CIA Factbook: "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications." The CIA also clearly explains that the civil war is happening in the southern parts of the country, not the autonomous northern Puntland and Somaliland regions, which are both actually doing quite well. Even in the south, business is healthy, as firms hire private security outfits for protection. All of this is already explained in the Economy of Somalia article, which for some strange reason you have chosen to ignore. Also note again that piracy (which has its origins in Puntland in the north, where there is not war, not the south) was not caused by the civil war in the south but by waste dumping & overfishing depriving local fishermen of their catches. Refer to the Piracy in Somalia article for the facts on that. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be all true, but i didnt removed those statements. My additions are not related to the informal economy part (which i didnt touched), the are related to the overall comparison of the somali economy to the other countries and here are the rankings clear: Somalia has one of the worst economys of the world and it _has_ a poverty problem. This should be inside. Your stated reasons for the piracy could be also perfectly summed up as "poverty". StoneProphet (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the notion that "Somalia has one of the worst economys of the world and it _has_ a poverty problem" is your POV, and yours alone. The CIA source that you were distorting clearly states that, "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications." And it does this in the relevant Economy section of the paper too. Nor is it the only source asserting this well-known fact, but just one of many. See the Economy of Somalia article for more, including this paper from the Wall Street Journal published just last month (note the reference to Somalia's "robust... private sector"). Again, stop with the POV. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok changed it again according to offial UN sources. I also didnt touched your other statements. StoneProphet (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's where you messed up again. You see, the UN itself has recently come under fire for meddling in local politics, and for profiteering over the situation in southern Somalia and actually helping prolong and aggravate the conflict (e.g. 1, 2, 3). It is therefore hardly a reliable source on a conflict it itself helped (and is helping) aggravate and prolong. There are many such actors in the civil war, which is why an article such as Propaganda in the War in Somalia even exists. I suggest you give your schadenfreude a rest, and learn to accept facts. Middayexpress (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement was from the same source, so it seems you regarded the UN as a reliable source as long as it fits in your POV. ;) Well your 2007 source doesnt change the fact that the UN _is_ regarded as a reliable source on wikipedia, so i revert it back. Stop your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and stop reverting sourced information. Dozens of UN sources + nearly all newspapers on the world (i could add 100s of newspaper articles on the humanitarian situaion in somalia) surly outwight a single 2007 article from a single private academic organization. Your POV of Somalia as a land of milk and honey is also still in the article, as i didnt touched it. I will also overlook your personal attack. StoneProphet (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy; it's an essay. Only actual policies determine what is or isn't permitted on Wikipedia. WP:QS, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:CONFLICT, on the other hand, are all clear on the inadmissibility of sources directly tied to situations they are describing. And like it or not, that most certainly includes the UN. FYI, the UN was actually recently under investigation for this very issue, and found guilty of corruption. Refer to this Newsweek article where the UN itself admits in a leaked report to its negative involvement in the war in Somalia, specifically with regard to corruption by its own personnel and contractors. In case you hadn't noticed, I also replaced the UN source after your explanation with a more reliable, uninvolved one from the renowned Ludwig von Mises Institute. I'm sure you could indeed add hundreds of negative news-pieces from random journalists who cannot on their own conduct surveys of Somalia's economy, as could I in the other direction. However, none of those news articles would have the weight of the CIA, the World Bank, the Independent Institute and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the latter of which specializes in economics, among other fields) -- authorities that, unlike the UN, are not involved in exacerbating the conflict in southern Somalia. And per WP:VER, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available." By the way, I've moved this discussion over to the Somalia article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you and your opponent have both broken WP:3RR at WP:AN3#User:Middayexpress reported by User:StoneProphet (Result: ). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise not to make any further controversial changes between now and August 1 at Somalia without *first* obtaining a consensus for your change on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that you are accepting the deal, which puts both you and Middayexpress under an editing restriction on Somalia which lasts until August 1. Per his talk page Midday will do the same. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the 3RR case as 'Restricted' now that I perceive both you and Middayexpress have accepted the temporary editing restriction at Somalia, which will last until August 1. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This revert is hard to understand if the content is truly not controversial. Blocks are possible if people do not take the restriction seriously. it would be better to propose your change first on talk, to see if anyone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is not about controversy, Middayexpress generally reverts the article if a foreign editor adds something, which i already pointed out in the 3rr case. He is doing this because he dont likes plain standard-facts which are in every country article in wikipedia (GDP numbers, death rates etc.), because they sound too negative for him. He only tolerates such facts if he can put it in a positve context, e.g. "has improved over the last years" and such things.
As i wrote on the talkpage he admitted himself that the health section need some work. He also said nothing when i proposed to add some factual numbers like the infant mortality rate. Because other editors had the same opinion, i actually added it. Nothing controversial in here. I also had good reasons to add it, because it makes no sense to add a statement like "Somalia was one of only three countries in Africa to increase its life expectancy by five years." without mentioning the _real_ life expectancy (which is still quite low and so he reverted it). Nevertheless he reverted it, only to read it 30 mins later again into the text (which clearly shows its not controversial), but now in a more positive light. Just read the Somalia talkpage then you see my reasons. And finally: look on the diff, do you really think this is a controversial edit? ;) StoneProphet (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that you and Middayexpress disagree about should be considered controversial. If you propose changes on the talk page first, before making them, and wait for responses, you could avoid this entire problem. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment if the two of you can't come to an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did indeed proposed changes on the talkpage, changes which other editors agreed on and Middayexpress did not disagree with them. His only statements about my proposals were that he agrees that the health section need some changes too. The matter is anyway over, Middayexpress edited the article to his own version (including those facts i added before and he reverted soon after), ofc without seeking any consenus (so maybe you should post the same on his talkpage too?). But i dont care anymore because i leave this article now anyway, since it is impossible to improve it as long as Middayexpress reigns over it. StoneProphet (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=40471025 Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freedom5000, it's just this IP of yours that wasn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. Now this IP just been blocked for 48 hours. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell... o.O StoneProphet (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your rationale for removing the quote.

Calling it a rant is more your opinion than fact.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the quote of Montgomery in this article without balance from other sources makes it seem, that the failure of the BEF operations is to blame only on Gort. Not only that, it implicates that Gort was very incompetent. Montgomery is not a historian or scholar, so his personal opinion may be interesting, but it has definitely not enough weight to be the conclusive authority. Since there are assesments from other scholars and historians who asses the performance of Gort as commander of the BEF more differentiated and not so one-sided negative (e.g. some even praise him for his clear cut decisions in the wake of the french defeat), it is not appropriate to leave his opinion alone in this article. Therefore i removed it, because i dont think Montgomerys personal opinion about Gort, which seems to be somehow negative and biased, is that important for the overall article. If we really need some assesment of Gorts commandership, it would be better to include secondary sources from scholars and historians (some are already in the Gort article). I hope its clear what i want to say, its not that i am a fan of Gort or so. StoneProphet (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the correct modern spelling in German is Rentier. Unfortunately the older alternative spelling was used when the operation was planned. Or the one who wrote it down misspelled it. Either way, it's official name comes with two 'n':s. --Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i dont know. Google books gives results for both spellings, so i dont know which is right. I hope your source is good. StoneProphet (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I made some more additions. I hope you don't mind. It just tied up the loose end at the end of one particular chapter. Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. StoneProphet (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the Soviet estimate without any discussion, nor consensus reached. If you look at the discussion page for Talk:Battle of Berlin, you will see there were long sections of discussion on numbers; estimates and proposed additions as to troops. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your addition to th Iraq section of the Axis of World War II article got reverted on the claim it had nothing to do with Iraq. If you can find a cite to a reliable source showing that the Mufti significantly influenced the anti-British Iraqis, then I'll support you putting the material back. --Yaush (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This had been in the article for a long time it seems, but I am not the original author who added it. I nevertheless reverted the deletion, as it seems the mufti played a key role in the anglo-iraq war, so a sentence about his axis related whereabout is useful. StoneProphet (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that entirely believable, but we're gonna need a cite or it's likely to disappear again. --Yaush (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its sourced in the article about the Mufti himself (Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Propaganda_and_recruitment). Most of the Axis Powers article is anyway just a summary and therefore unsourced, so i guess its fine. StoneProphet (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Erich von Manstein, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Bexhill (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) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with citations in the Battle of Bautzen (1945)! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) StoneProphet (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have asked for foreign titles to be translated into English. I did so for the Polish ones, could you help with the German ones? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did translate them. However, angled brackets did break up the refs somehow, so i changed it to round bracketes. I hope you dont mind. StoneProphet (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the exercise of looking at three German army group personnel strength quotations from various points in 1944 and 1945 and compared the number of division equivalents in each instance. The object was to figure out the average "slice" for the divisions. The figure varied more than I expected, but two of the figures run around 10,300 and 12,100. Running these figures against the number of divisions for Army Group B in the Bulge (29 division or division equivalents), the projected strength of Army Group B comes out at around 300,000 to about 350,000 -- kind of what we expected. (Note this does not include the divisions in the 15th Army). When I included 14 divisions that took part in the offensive into Alsace (Nordwind), then the figure jumps to a range of 440,000 to 520,000. Makes me think the "500,000" figure that has been quoted includes the strength of the 1st and 19th Army units that took part in Nordwind. Not anything rigorous enough for Wikipedia, but food for thought. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, can you provide a citation for the 300,000 quote for Army Group B during the Bulge (you mentioned Mitcham; I am kind of wary of using Cole's average strength to derive a strength for the army group)? As a comment, I would prefer not to mix the strengths associated with Nordwind as the Bulge article really should only be about operations in the Ardennes. I have no issue with the 500,000 figure being edited as long as there is published source to back it up. I suspect some of the repetition of that number is just authors quoting each other without actually looking at anything like a wartime Iststärke report or something of the kind. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well regarding Cole i am afraid to say this is indeed an assumption of the statement "29 divisions" and "10,000 men average per Division". Mitchham states (i already wrote it on the Bulge talkpage) "In total, the Germans committed about 250,000 men [...] while another 55,000 men with 561 tanks and assault guns waited just to the east". You can revert/change it, if you think its too shaky. Regarding the 500,000 men number i really think its for the Ardennes + Nordwind, since all clues point to that. Whether the Nordwind figures are inside the article or not, i dont care that much, but then they should be just correctly labeled. StoneProphet (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think Mitcham can be used to point to the 300,000 figure with no issues then. I'll leave Nordwind figures out of the Bulge articles to keep it focused and to avoid any more confusion on this issue -- there is already too much mixing that had to be explained with a lengthy note regarding casualties. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.49 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, StoneProphet. I'm trying to establish whether all German forces were out of Chambery, France before October 1944. Would your research allow you to answer that question? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.35.96 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Operation Dragoon was already finished at 15 September. I guess you mean Chambéry. I couldnt find the mentioning a battle for this city. Lyon was taken at the beginning of September, and Grenoble alraedy in mid/end August. This city lies nearby on the route of the US VI Corps and later the French I Corps which were advancing towards the Swiss border in mid-end September. So its likley that this city was taken by the Allies in early September/Mid September too, because by mid September when Operation Dragoon ended, the overall Allied advance was far east to Chambery close to the Italo-French border. Unfortunately the sources about Operation Dragoon dont deal with this eastern advance of the allied forces in Dragoon during the northern advance.StoneProphet (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been preparing a new account of Operation Dragoon which you can find here. While researching it, I found that: although Armeegruppe G is usually translated as "Army Group G", it was only formally upgraded to an Army Group (Heeresgruppe) on 8 September. See Boog, Krebs & Vogel 2006, p. 657. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are really sure about that, then ok. StoneProphet (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really stopped me in my tracks, because an armeegruppe (which some translate as "operational group") is normally smaller than an army. I double-checked it against the German version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allies of World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East African Campaign (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) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone,

Regarding this diff, there is no OR involved. The German author simply quotes German sources as if they completely irreproachable while doubting Soviet sources. Frankly, although the German work concerned is very useful and generally reliable, there are instances in their coverage of the Russo-German War where they seem to assume that German soldiers were a species of Boy Scouts who could be counted upon to accurately report their kills, when in fact German soldiers were as given to exaggeration as any other. I honestly see no reason to call the statement I wrote "OR" -- it is a simple statement of fact concerning the work's approach. As it is written now, one might assume the German work suffers from no flaws at all, an idea that I challenge. German historiography has come a long way since the generals' memoirs of the 1950's, but they still have some distance to cover when it comes to fairly describing the 1944-45 battles on the eastern front. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well i did this edit together with the removal of some Soviet claims from the infobox which is frequently added. This is part of a bigger problem. There is very long lasting conflict on eastern front articles regarding the usage of sources. There are some nationalist Russian editors (nothing against Russians ofc, there are some good Russian editors too) who occasionally jump in, and use Soviet sources from the 60s and 70s as some kind of "counterbalance" to the currently used reliable sources in those articles. Then they claim for the sake of NPOV that those 60s and 70s Soviet propaganda sources are equal to modern historic research (like Germany and the Second World War, or historians like Frieser did). I strongly disagree with this. For me this edit down below there seemed to be another attempt to somehow discredit reliable sources (which GatSWW is) to somehow bring back strange Soviet claims/sources through the back door. Thats why I labeled it as OR and toned it down.

OfC General memoirs are not a good source, but this is not the point here. When it comes to casualties, we should Soviet archival research for Soviet casualties (done e.g. by Krivosheev) and for German casualties we should sources which had dug in German archives (like people like Frieser did). Soviet claims to German casualties (except taken prisoners) are always ridiculous. Just as Nazi-German claims for Soviet casualties would be - but the usually nobody attempts to use the latter.

The version as it is now mentions both "claims", but does not discredit the more reliable source. Maybe a better edit summary would have been "toned down" or "more neutral". If we start to discuss the flaws of German data interpreted by modern historians for German casualties (there are surly some) in an article, we must definitely start to discuss the unreliability of Soviet claims for German casualties in an even larger way. But this article there is imo not the right place.

Short summary: I thought this formulation was not neutral as it seems to discredit the more reliable source of both (modern historic research vs contemporary wartime claims), which is ridicoulus, because those wartime Soviet claims are certainly far more unreliable. StoneProphet (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, I agree (mostly) with your short summary, but the objective of the "historiography" section was to point that this is one of those battles that have been re-fought in writing, and often not with much honesty. The Germans have also committed errors in this regard; but I had no intent to say the modern German source is as flawed as the ideologically tainted Soviet works done earlier. The German author, though, I think fell into a common trap of assuming that "his side" was reporting more accurately. Frankly, I think all soldiers in the war with no army excepted were under great pressure to report positive results. What irritates about the modern German work is that the author takes the time to assail the Soviet figures but then makes no effort whatsoever to point out that German reports might not have been 100% accurate as they were compiled under the pressure of retrograde operations. If I seem to take some umbrage at the "OR" comment, it is because when I heavily edited this article, it was quite POV at that time, based on the older German sources and almost seemed to make the German experience in Korsun a victory. I took the article and put in the form it has presently, although plenty of small edits have been made since then. At the least, my edits gave a bit of face to the Soviet opponents of the Germans and brought out the fact that post-battle, both sides had issued misinformation about the battle -- and, believe me, it was not fun wading through the multiple German, Russian, Swedish, and U.S. viewpoints about this battle. We have collaborated on articles before (I think the last was the Battle of the Bulge article re: casualties) and I realize you are careful in your editing -- but I guess I would have appreciated an opportunity to discuss before this particular edit was made. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I had wrote a lenghty answer detailing my point, but now I read again what was written there in the old version and what I had deleted. It seemed, based on the formulation/placement of the sentence and preoccupied with my mindset of Russian IPs jumping into the article giving credibilty to unrealistic Soviet claims I misinterpreted the sentence.

I thought this sentence somehow tries to discredit the German archival research for German cas numbers while it promotes the Soviet wartime claims for German casualties. This, as I wrote above is something I strongly disagree with. However the sentence I removed seemed to have dealt with German claims for Soviet casualties. Given how this sentence is placed directly after the discussion about German cas I came to a different impression. Well of course German wartime estimates for Soviet casualties are not a very good source. As I wrote above, using kill claims of the opposite side is always a bad idea and we shouldnt do that, this is out of question. Since usually only the opposite happens in WP (using Soviet war time claims for German casualties) I understood the sentence wrong. I dont have this volume of GatSWW here now so I cant check what is exactly written in there, but it still remeinas a reliable source. If you think your point this is right you can re-add the sentence. Maybe it should be altered to be a bit more clear and mb less reproachful. I also came to the impression that Soviet casualties were never a problem, and the only controversy is about German casualties, so the discussion of German wartime claims for Soviet cas is imo not really an important topic. I hope you get what I mean. This was a misunderstanding I apologize therefore for this. StoneProphet (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, no need for an apology. If anything, I overreacted to a minor change and you have my regrets. I'll look at the German volume, post the text in question, and suggest a less awkward version of what I was trying to bring out. I understand "reacting to IP editors" -- while some of them are okay, it seems that a lot of them make controversial edits. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frieser, on page 416, takes Soviet claims to task, stating that they are in the "realm of fantasy". Well, okay -- he is talking about Soviet-era claims, and I am well aware of the tendency to inflate claims, especially where totalitarian systems are in operation. But then, on page 417, he goes to extra length to praise German counts of Soviet armor losses, stating Da jedoch, wie immer, wenn empfindliche Panzerverluste zu beklagen waren, keine abgaben gemacht werden, müssen die deutschen Meldungen herangezogen werden, die in dieser Kriegsphase wegen der restriktiven Trefferanerkennung eine erstaunliche Zuverlässigkeit erlangten. - which I translate roughly as "the German counts are very reliable because of the high standard required for claiming a hit" -- with no discussion that the numbers might have even been just a bit inflated or that they were made under difficult battle conditions involving retreat over long distances. He then states as fact that 1,478 Soviet tanks and guns were "destroyed" between 4 and 18 February. This alone is a bit astounding, as the leap from "hits" to "kills" has been made -- a notoriously difficult relationship to reckon when one cannot be sure how many vehicles the enemy has recovered and quickly repaired, how many appeared to stop because of the hit but were in fact not that seriously damaged, etc. It was this sloppiness in the discussion of the German assessment of Soviet losses that I thought was notable in a discussion that looked at good and bad aspects of the historical accounts. So that is where my thoughts were when I wrote, Yet, while this work has no Soviet sources regarding the losses of Soviet AFVs and guns at Korsun, it presents tallies for these Soviet losses based upon German wartime claims without any discussion of the tendency of units in combat to overestimate their "kill counts" -- perhaps this sentence could be more professionally written as, Yet, while this work cites no Soviet (or modern Russian) sources regarding the losses of Soviet AFVs and guns at Korsun, it uncritically accepts German wartime claims regarding Soviet losses. Does this statement sound more acceptable ? Cheers (and sorry for the long posts), W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems he indeed takes the German wartime claims. Still he is a reliable researcher, so his assesment of the reliability of German wartime claims for Soviet AFV losses has probably its reasons, although I find this very shaky too. Why not something like this: However, while German casualties in this work are taken from German archives, it bases its assessment of Soviet AFV and gun losses (uncritically) on German wartime claims. StoneProphet (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That will work as well. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to add it please. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

Phead128 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For updating the PP article; perhaps you could offer some more info on issues I raise at Talk:Pirate_Party_Germany#Please_update_for_2013? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just filed a RfC-U regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. The issues raised are serious and concern WP's fundamental rules, including NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul von Hindenburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag. 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 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Panzer-Abteilung 40, Dead Mary!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Maybe one more reference?

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I thought it was wrong. Regards. --Zumalabe (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 4players.de, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. czar 03:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heike Hohlbein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Youth literature. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Holmes (director), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Going Down. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J. B. Rogers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages American Pie, N24 and Say It Isn't So. 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) 09:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Operation Arctic Fox has been completed.

During the copy edit another editor altered this sentence in the Preparations section changing "train" to "ship":

"The 169th Division was transported directly by ship from Stettin to Oulu and then by train to Rovaniemi."

I wanted to draw it to your attention. I'm assuming this is correct so I have moved the reference to the ship fire so that it follows this sentence.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your copy editing! :) The correction made by Wanderer602 is correct, it was a mistake by me. Between Stettin and Oulu is a big sea so using the train would be a bit hard. Dead Mary (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Dragoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VI Corps. 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) 11:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dead Mary! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:20, Wednesday, September 28, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Silver Fox, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Finnish III Corps and Northern Front. 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) 09:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Arctic Fox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After making some minor edits here and there, I reassessed the article as GA. Congratulations!--Catlemur (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could i ask your reasoning for the recent changes you made to the background section? I don't quite understand why you removed the reference to the Finnish-Swedish defense union or why you inserted there a statement that Finland and Germany would have "cooperated to develop a joint policy against the Soviet Union." Because that seems to be a rather massive oversimplification of the chain of events - from Interim Peace or from Continuation_War#Background. I do not think that all of that information would need to be included but the current phrasing just seems rather misleading. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I removed one sentence because it was partly redundant to the next one. The other one was added because it didnt connect really well to the following sentence which already talked about the German planning. There had to be to be a final sentence to sum up the final situation when the planning for the operation began to not confuse the reader. I understand your concerns that the complex Finnish diplomatic history in WWII is simplified in this paragraph, but you have to keep the following in mind: Operation Arctic Fox is just a sub-operation of Operation Silver Fox, which is in turn a sub-operation of Operation Barbarossa which intertwines with the Continuation War. I dont think this is the right place to talk in length about the back and forth in Finnish diplomatic history in WWII/Interim period. E.g. I dont really see how it matters for this sub-sub-operation that at one time before Finland tried to ally with Sweden, which failed. What matters is that at the end of the day Finland and Germany were in the same boat regarding this topic and a joint offensive was planned. Note that I did not change your additions in the topic-wise broader Operation Silver Fox article. I have no problems with changing it again, but I'd like to keep this section short and concise. Also perhaps we should also wait until the GA reviewer has made a general statement to the article, since an editor has started a review recently. Dead Mary (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i wasn't thinking of making the changes now, mainly that it might be better to just post there a link to the article handling the period between the Winter War and the Continuation War since it is rather difficult to explain it in there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the entire section now anyways, due to a request from the GA review. I also added some main links to other articles. Dead Mary (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Operation Arctic Fox you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Arctic Fox for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dead Mary. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Operation Dragoon at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Dead Mary (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Be sure to see additional comments at User talk:AustralianRupert#Operation Dragoon. I hope you don't mind; I asked a military history expert to review my copy-edits, and he kindly did, and found and corrected a few errors.  – Corinne (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks it fine. It seems to be alright now after he looked over the raised points. I provided a little bit of explanations on his talk page. Dead Mary (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Operation Dragoon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Dragoon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Arctic Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman Panin. 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) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

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

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

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

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

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thank you very much for these kind words! Didn't expect that. :) Dead Mary (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2155 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Johann Schwarzhuber at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:4player.de logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please note that I have set up a section related to the Talk:World War II reparations dispute regarding the two sentences on the 1970 treaty talks and the 2004 declaration by the Council of Ministers on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. E-960 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella🍁 16:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]