 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Palmeira has not edited Wikipedia since 5 February 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
User talk:Palmeira/Archive 1
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
SOSUS itself is a sonar system, not a facility. As you wrote in the Centreville Beach article, it literally has an AN series, Joint Electronics Type Designation System, designation, AN/FQQ-11 (V) in that case. It properly goes in either/or Category:Military equipment of the United States - and its subcategories - and Category:Equipment of the United States Navy, or its subcategories. It does NOT go in an installation article. The installations where the sonar system was located are indeed installations, and do go in that category. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are demonstrating your lack of understanding. Read the full SOSUS article and maybe some references. Each SOSUS installation in the initial phase had and array, cable and shore based receiver set designated AN/FQQ. The facility itself had shore processing equipment with corresponding designations. In effect the entire early array and shore facility was a sonar installation. The facilities were Navy installations. The first SOSUS station/arrays were installations. The system itself, first composed of individual stations and their arrays later consolidated into ocean processing facilities grew beyond the individual installations. I am willing to discuss whether the overall system as it ended, to become IUSS that included ships, should continue as an "installation" but for the early system "installation(s) fits. Palmeira (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
How did so many people with a goody-goody, pwimawy (ewementawy) school teacher's mentawity all wind up in the same place? You & RupertA and (who else was it?)... Elmer Fudd... all deserve each other. Have a proper look next time, before you so blindly join forces with a bunch of people so hell-bent on censorship, just for its own sake. I think you insult the intelligence of military history buffs, by assuming they too only have the attention span of a gnat - just because you/ yourselves do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.6.144 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case you are watching I did notice. As others had pointed out the references are not "reliable" sources. You also may not be noticing that you may be well on the way to banning. Reverts were explained, and no, your claimed personal expertise and contributions to publications and museums count for nothing. Neither does mine in such subjects. That is personal, personal research and does not fly on Wikipedia — even if it sometimes suffers a bit of depth and accuracy as a result. Please don't clutter my page with any more such raving. Palmeira (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Military Barnstar
|
| Give heed lowly Landlubbers and denizens of the Imperium Neptuni Regis—honorable Shellbacks and slimy Pollywogs alike—and know all ye by these presents that: For trawling the depths of the internet and finding reliable sources documenting the dutiful wartime service of the worthy captain and faithful crew of the USCGC Taney on December 7, 1941, and refuting the unfounded slight by an anonymous scurvy DANFS scribbler upon their conduct in battle the Military Barnstar together with all its attendant armorial honors, accoutrements, and appurtenances is hereby endowed and bestowed upon Palmeira. Mox La Push (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
I'm not advocating the use of any ship prefix here, but a while back (I think on WP:SHIPS) I had a WTF moment when TSS showed up. Googling located a fragmentary reference circa 1900 that had TSS as "Twin Screw Steamer" and TrSS as "Triple Screw Steamer". Just thought you'd like to know. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I have quite an "archive" of old engineering and other publications from the late 1800s through WWII in both bookmarks to on-line archives and in some cases hard copy on a shelf. The idea some have that there was anything "officially fixed" about prefixes is misguided. Some were cooked up by industry — even a single builder — to characterize some innovation. One interesting aspect is seen in professional journals where the articles rarely use prefixes yet the advertising is full of them. The articles depended upon descriptions, such as "building, a triple screwed steamship by XYZ for ABC" and then possibly an ad by ABC about the soon to be put into service "TrSS Lord of the Seas. On the fundamental SS and MS/MV there was a truly interesting period after developments in Europe showed motor propulsion cheaper and more efficient. A particular reaction was a number of the WW I U.S. glut of hulls getting either conversions or, if early enough, switch to installed diesel vice steam. Apparently it became chic to emphasize the new power and it is my impression the MS/MV got a big print boost. I think those prefixes make an interesting archive of how industry tagged things and should be in a dictionary. Using them in writing about ships is another matter. Far better in my view to write more in line with contemporary professional journals with unambiguous descriptions. Here is one with a combo: TSS Manxman (1955), TSS and RMS but at least not together in the title and the RMS is not used as a prefix. And here is the twin screw usage, The Twin Screw Steam Ship Earnslaw of 1911. But then, confusion, with multiple formats in one piece with TS/S STEFAN BATORY, Polish Ocean Liner 1968-1988 immediately followed with "The immediate predecessor of TSS STEFAN BATORY, 1969-88 was the famous MS BATORY, 1936-71." and later "MS SOBIESKI - 1939-75; sold to USSR, then scrapped as M/S GRUZIJA," so WTF! Palmeira (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Palmeira. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of USS Audacious (1913) and Talk:USS Audacious (1913), pages you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason you gave sounds like R3, but R3 only applies to recently created redirects, and this one is almost 13 years old. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jackmcbarn: ok, I'll raise it for discussion. I don't think you duly considered the case. Regardless of 13 years existence there was no such ship. It was a complete blunder by someone not doing any investigation. There are now no incoming links. At worst it will be a useless page. Palmeira (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Mjroots deleted them under G6 instead, so I guess this is kind of moot now, but my concern was that there could be external sites that had links to them, which are now broken, and even though that name was indeed incorrect, the very existence of Category:Redirects from incorrect names implies that just being incorrect isn't sufficient grounds to delete a redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jackmcbarn: Understand. My view is that there are "incorrect names" and absolutely blundering names. We have a plague of "USS NAME" cases here where the use of U.S.S. is incorrect and actually offensive to those knowing the official criteria for that honorable — and legally significant (life and death in some cases) — statement of status, not just a prefix. Firing on a vessel from S.S. Something is piracy. By a United States Ship it is a matter of state and so is the reverse. Attacking some ship is an "incident" — attacking U.S.S. Something is a clear act of war with probably "explosive" result. Those are merely "incorrect" and mistakes the naive searcher might use with redirects useful. The name in question was on another scale. It had zero association with the Navy, it was never even of U.S. registry. it was an artifact of one knows not what impulse to turn a foreign ship seized by the U.S. in wartime, registered in Panama, operated by civilian shipping agents then finally disposed of as a useful part of a very historic structure and event into a commissioned U.S. warship. It had no internal links. I do not think the chance someone, somewhere would duplicate the initial blunder and link from outside Wikipedia is something we should concern ourselves with. Now, I see your point on the simply incorrect names where some U.S.N. yard craft has been honored with a title signifying commissioned status with all the associated "rights and responsibilities." Palmeira (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lloyd's Register entries for Belvedere linked from here. Plenty of info there. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mjroots:: Thank you. I'll try to integrate those. I'm also glad to see Lloyd's in a usable format! Since Plimsol went away and the "replacement" was difficult to say the least I've neglected the register. Palmeira (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Plimsol hasn't gone away, it's just a bit harder to use. Shall I see if there is anything for Aucacious? Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mjroots:Yes, please check if you can. I am tracking some other leads. I remember trying Lloyd's after the new site came on line and found it a true mess, a broken thing after the ease of the other site. I'll have to check back. (Though in my "dotage" I'm much less patient with "sow earing silk purses" so to speak.) Palmeira (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lloyd's Register entries for Audacious. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mjroots: Thank you. Ah, those tonnages! I note that the MARAD status card has GRT as does Lloyd's after the 1937 conversion. Then here comes Lloyd's for the ship after MC/WSA turn it into a Panamanian ship and the tonnage pops back to about pre 1937 figures! The 1941-42 register actually strikes the post conversion 6,889 GRT and makes if 7,455 GRT, very close to the pre 1937 conversion value of 7,420 GRT! I find it hard to believe the ship was somehow reconverted after seizure so that the volumetric GRT changed that much. There was sabotage on most of the Italian ships, including some pretty extensive fires, but this does not seem reasonable given the time involved and zero mention of anything but repairs. (Some really interesting pieces about welded patches made to steam cylinders with chunks knocked out!) The question becomes why would Lloyd's calculation revert from Belvedere of 1940s to Belvedere/Audacious of 1936. Some spaces not purposed for DWT inclusion (I've forgotten the exclusions.) re-purposed as in the pre 1937 calculation without significant physical modification? This sort of thing shows the thin ice we are on when we state such characteristics as "solid fact" as all depend so much on who does the measurement/calculation using what method and stated in what terms. Palmeira (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It can get confusing, can't it. I'd take the struck through figure to be "in error". One thing Lloyd's is good for though is engine details. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mjroots: Ah, but then we would tend to take the struck through figure in 1937-38 and continued into 1939-40 as an error. An error nearly reversed in 1941-42? Logic fails. We do have independent evidence that GRT had reason to change, a reduction, in a major modification done in 1937, elimination of passenger space and going straight cargo. I'll have to review what is and is not included in GRT calculation but from memory I can see "spaces" once used for passenger services eliminated, actually torn off as excess superstructure rather than converted to cargo space. If I remember correctly that could reduce GRT. The one hint of how such space might be "restored" by WSA is the mention of the ship being used for troops, i.e., passengers. If some old passenger spaces had been sealed off (as in a ship I knew) would they have been eliminated in GRT but then opened and included? The definition, my emphasis, is "volume of space within the hull and enclosed space above the deck of a merchant ship which are available for cargo, stores, fuel, passengers and crew." Interesting thought regarding the sudden restoration of GRT to pre conversion values in this ship. Palmeira (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
After a career spanning 1930-1971 at six stations, Lightship No. 114 was acquired in 1975 by the City of New Bedford, Mass. as a potential museum ship. In 1976 she was repainted as "New Bedford" (I don't know if this was a historical light station at all, and wasn't for this ship) for the Bicentennial celebrations. She was parked at a relatively high-visibility pier. Around that time a new expressway was built through the city that made access between the waterfront and the rest of the city difficult, and contributed to the city's economic decline. The lightship proceeded to receive little maintenance and was never opened for visitors. In 2006 she sank at her moorings, and several attempts to sell her for scrap failed to attract buyers. An EBay listing yielded about $1,700, which was increased to $10,000 when the scrapper apparently took pity on the city. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sad indeed, though the fate of so many preservation efforts. The Presidential yacht Sequoia used to be down in Washington Channel and looking rather good. Then troubles and failed efforts and "found" in sad shape down on the Bay somewhere. Most of the ships I knew, homes and "companions" traveling, got ripped apart. I kept up with two in the process and did not enjoy it. One is a reef, a better end in my view. As for lightships (and lights) I am glad to see preservation efforts. I usually had "cutting edge" navigation, unavailable to most, but on more than one occasion near land found the sight of a light reassuring. Good memories of the ships and towers all around the world. At the same time I always felt a bit sorry for those on those ships going nowhere and often just sitting there in rough weather. Palmeira (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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]
Good afternoon.
I've recently come into possession of an original print, now scanned, of the after-action report of the Tangier's actions on the morning of Dec 7, 1941. (My uncle was assigned to Tangier from '44 to '46.) It runs two-plus pages, is scanned in color, and fairly hi-res so a bit over 10 Mb.
I don't think I'm qualified to edit the Wiki article, not sure if this would even be an appropriate contribution. I'd be happy to point you to my shared Dropbox folder if you're interested in seeing it, regardless of whether it gets folded into the Tangier article.
Thanks for your consideration -- and I hope this isn't an abuse of your talk page. I'm new to doing anything more than reading in Wikipedia. I saw that there is an off-wiki email mechanism but that seemed even more obscure.
Benton 12dec20
Ben2n (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
Hi, you recently added a post to a discussion I started at wt:ships. I appreciate the response, but it was both somewhat lengthy and not quite on the topic I was looking to discuss, and so I was wondering if you would consider perhaps collapsing your comment? I don't want editors to pass it by due to tl;lr, nor do I want the discussion to veer off into commentary about the USS and/or USNS prefixes, etc. This is just a request, not a demand, and again, I still appreciate your input either way. Thanks - wolf 14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, this has gone way deeper than I intended. I was just hoping to address the infrequent use of a single prefix, but perhaps a longer discussion regarding status, infobox updates, etc. is needed. Thanks again for feedback. - wolf 00:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A longer discssion is definitely needed but I'm not particularly optimistic it will not become anything more than the circular, polling for opinion, sometimes uninformed and not based in fact, that goes nowhere. I understand your point. I also disagree it can be solved in isolation from the underlying "disease" there. Palmeira (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently have a massive 300KB talk page, that would be slow to read and difficult to navigate for certain devices. Have you considered setting some archiving? See H:ARC for more info. Hope you find this useful. - wolf 15:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost never look at the page. Yeah, it is old and long. Tried to do a manual archive to make it 2020 and later with User talk:Palmeira/Archive 1 the stuff before. Palmeira (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:USS Redpoll (AMS-57) NH 85397.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
I've added links to PMR to WP:SHIPS/R, but 1935 seems to be missing. Can you find it? Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mjroots: Done, 1938 added too. Thanks for doing that. I never got around to it and would likely have not done the nice table. Palmeira (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is down to Gatoclass. Mjroots (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks of Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fort Mason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 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) 01:59, 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) 02:43, 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) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USAT Sicilien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit-warring. You need to undo this edit or I'll report you for edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not edit warring. Three revert rule applies. I've stated my reasons and the cites in the article on the Talk page. Take it there. The Navy classed the ships separately from the other light cruisers. Your other writers cannot trump how the Navy classed its ships. You are changing cited text. Palmeira (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 3RR doesn't mean you can revert twice. You're edit-warring, plain and simple. I'll say it again. Undo your reverts or I'll report you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to quit this and discuss the issues I've raised. Palmeira (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
I am not sure what I am doing on this platform. Hopefully contacting you as you had the last edit on his winkipedia page. I am his grandson and would like to know more history about him. I would like to get in contact if you have more information.
Thank you
Matthew O’Halloran Mcoh04 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I only updated the Boston Port of Embarkation information on the page and know absolutely nothing about the person. I found your note only accidentally as I've been totally engaged in "real world" projects since before Christmas and only clicked a link to Wikipedia for something else (first time in weeks!) and noticed an alert. That sort of research is outside my usual and "library" of references and knowing where to look but search engines used well can be revealing. I'd advise doing such using various keys. For some really obscure things — of more interest to me than Wiki stuff — I've had some success contacting local libraries and historical centers in locations where the subject was known to be. Palmeira (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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) 17:52, 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) 22:27, 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) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
|
|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
_NH_85397.jpg){kind=link}
_NH_85397.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)