User talk:Commander Zulu

This user may have left Wikipedia. Commander Zulu has not edited Wikipedia since 15 January 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

		The Original Barnstar
		For adding so much content of quality to so many pages. Deon Steyn 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

/Archive 1

If you can come up with something on the .476/.455 conflict, great. I do have aid on offer from User:DigitalNinja, but if you can beat him to it, no objection from me. It sounds like he's got a source in mind, but may not have it handy. Maybe ask him & see if you've got it? (I'm pretty sure I don't, so I didn't bother...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was a lack of clarity in my source over whether, & why, they interchange... Prima facie, I wouldn't expect it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. Q, tho. If the bore was .455 (or .442), why call it .476? (Or .455, for all that.) Barnes has the bore of the Mk1 & Mk2 as .455...which I presumed was a difference in inside/outside lube against the .476. No? Or does it go the other way, .442:.455? Barnes also has it as .476 Enfiled Mk3/Eley; I'm presuming the Enfield was the "official" B.A. round, in the fashion of Springfield. Where did Eley come in? The commercial maker of the Army round? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Now I see what Barnes meant, "The .476 has caused much confusion". ;D I think this will earn a DYK. If it does, it may owe it to you. Just one last request: page #s for the quotes? Thanks a bunch. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, sir. I confess, that's not a particular interest, but I'm a writer, so a good source is always of value. You never know when you might want to have Harper take a shot at Wellesley, or something. And look for a .476 Enfield article at a wiki near you. ;D Ciao. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very generous offer. I will keep you in mind. You wouldn't have anything on the .44 Colt, by any chance? I put it up for a DYK, too, & it failed for being too short. Thanks again. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:05 & 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, from your userpage, you've created a few articles. Let me offer you a couple of things. First, this:

This user created the article Article.

or, if you prefer, this:

This user created the article Article.

both my own creations. And second, the "hider", which I borrowed from somebody (I wish I could recall who...). Maybe you'll find them useful? (Or you can ignore me. ;D) If you do decide to use, the New Pages/Open Vanity are readily changed to something you like better. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Don't go asking me for userpage style advice. (You've seen mine? ;D ). And thanks for the additional help on .44 Colt. I'm also looking at my local library to see if there's anything there. FYI, I put up .476 Enfield up to DYK (or did I say that already...?); still waiting an answer. If it makes it, it'll owe it to you. Ciao. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It passed! And no, I don't mind your adding one bit (especially since it got the DYK =]). That's how WP works. Thanks. (I'm trying real hard not to gloat. ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of or embarrassed about. ;D Even in Barnes, it seemed kinda stubby. I'm still going to have a look in both Flayderman & Fjelstadt & see what I can come up with, even if it's only a list of a few weapons that used it. I notice you explained the conversion process; I did not know that. One small point. I notice you added "obsolete". I deliberately left that out, after seeing a question elsewhere here over what was/wasn't defined as such (tho Barnes says it too), so I'm taking it back out again, plus a small change to the cals, to "keep it in the family" of revolver rounds & to avoid contradiction (the .45 Colt isn't a lot newer...). Y'know, I feel like bragging to everybody I've ever left a message for. ;D It doesn't get much better. Thanks a bunch for helping make it possible. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't dispute it, just that the issue came up & don't want to be edit warring over it with people who know even less about the issue than me. ;D If it should come up again, I'll send them around, & you can persuade 'em. ;p

BTW, do you know anything about the .476 Enfield revolvers used by Le Gendarmerie du Nordwest? It'd be a great add here or at NWMP, if you can work it in. If you want (since I'm better motivated ;D), name a source & I'll do it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:44 & 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Can you source so I can add? (If not right away...) FYI, I posted the Q to WPSK, seeing how they may've been used out here. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should've thought to look there first. :/ (I'm still way more accustomed to going to books first... ;D) Yep, I was right suspecting it'd be in Maze (having now actually looked. ;D). Did you put up the RCMP add? I just spotted it & tweaked for "a small number" (& I now have to find #on NWMP strengths for the 1890s to substantiate it :/)... Ah, well, I've always enjoyed research. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking "small numbers" against total strength, which will run over 5K, but I take your point. And a number with source is probably better than a guess... Consider it fixed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more WP-tech issue, do you know if there's a cat for "yr discontinued"? I've been adding "yr intro" where I don't find it, & IIRC, there's a "yr ending" (or something like it) for companies, but I can't seem to find 1 for ammo. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I finish on .44 Webley (which has been hanging while I clear up the junk on lost kittens & redcoated throngs ;D). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also tagged the talk page. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. I was going to add to .450 Adams, but I thought I'd let you finish. (OK, the truth is, my head's starting to hurt. ;D ) Y'know, that Custer bit may be worth another DYK, if we can expand enough. (If you haven't added the DYK userbox for .44 Colt, I invite you to steal copy mine, seeing I made it anyhow, & you made it possible.) If .44 Webley makes DYK, I suggest a joint nom. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant this:

This user has had an article he or she created selected for DYK.

(Hope you don't object to a reversion.) And I managed to archive my page, so if you want, just copy that with suitable change of username. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the least I could do. And now, I'm going to bed. It has been a pleasure working with you. Ciao. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Bulldog, Barnes (p.170 & 177) says it was a low-power .44 short, distinct from the .442, & I deleted on that basis. Unless you've got a better source... (And it was already too short for a DYK, d*mnit... ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. I should know it's never so simple... ;D Hey, with even part of that going in, tho, it ought to pass being too short. Good news! (BTW, I gave you a joint nom on it, since the Custer tag I used was yours). And, if you didn't know, I understand .476 Enfield is in the queue for DYK, too. (2 in 1 week! Is that a record? =] ) Thanks for that, also. I'm putting the cites/info back in now, & adding.

The cite for the spl .44 Bulldog round will also work nicely when I get to creating the page for it (the next day or two), so you're due another TY. Whew, I'm tired of thanking you. ;D

Also, if you can find it, can you say what cal Custer's RICs were? (I'd bet not .44 Webley...which might DQ the DYK...) His carrying them might be worth an add here; I had a look there & couldn't figure out where to put it, but... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:05 & 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Barnes, it's known in England as .442 Revolver Centre Fire (he gives .442 RIC as an alternate), so .442 RCF would seem to be the most logical name, if it's to be moved. And he also lists .44 Webley as the U.S. ID... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One technical ish. If you can figure it out, can you fix the Rem load ref under btype2 in the infobox? It's not displaying for me, & I can't figure out why. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems the short .44 was exclusive to the Bulldog, I was going to use .44 Bulldog, & if .442 Webley is so common, I've no beef with using that (with an add, if you can find it, .442RCF is official, which Barnes doesn't actually say). Let me polish my open edit, & I'll move, then update the DYK nom. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (which that filled redlink should reveal ;) ). I'm getting too tired to be careful enough to do .44 Bulldog tonight, so maybe tomorrow. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--Oh, good. You wouldn't have anything on the .442 or .476, by chance? And where did the 1950s date come from? Dowell, I presume. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's it grab you now? I re-added the comparative rounds (partly to stretch it out... ;D) & dabbed the .44 Bulldog. Oh, and if that was you I got an "edit conflict" with, will you try again? I'm done. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This is great. Especially when it comes out so well, & with no conflicts. (Take a look at some of the wrangling over Attack on Pearl Harbor or the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate sometime, if you want to see how bad it can be... :/)

Since you took out the comparative rounds, will you have a look again & see if you disagree? If so, I'd be interested in knowing why. I'm relying on the ME figs in Barnes.

I'll have a go on .450 Adams tomorrow, unless you'd rather I wait a bit.

I'm off, now. See you again tomorrow. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough. I'd defend by saying

a) .442 Webley isn't well known, either

b) the articles are linked for the uninitiated

c) 7.65 Para (.30 Para, or, wrongly, .30 Luger) is reasonably well-known/common, if not by that name

d) I also (since) added more common rounds, incl .38 Spl, .38 Super, & .45 ACP

e) I think some frame of reference is useful.

Having said that, I'd welcome opinion on whether there are too many comparatives & they might be trimmed. I wanted some contemporaries, like the .41 Colt, & some modern. Thoughts?

I'll have a go at .450 sometime today. Ciao. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, given the possible ambiguity over Custer's RIC, & the Qs raised at DYK if he actually carried 1 anyhow, I withdrew the nom. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised. I would've bet they were .45s. Can I request you notify DYK page, seeing how you found it? I'll add to .442 (unless you have already...). Also, any thoughts on my .450 work? And the provenance of the 1874 NWMP model? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not so much... This says, "Lord Berkeley Paget presented British-made .44 caliber Galand revolvers to both Major General George Armstrong Custer and Custer's brother Tom as a thank-you gift for a hunt organized for him in the western United States." Which doesn't exclude a) other weaps being given Custer, b) their being .442s, or c) the Galand page being completely wrong (as the claim is entirely uncited).... Neither is it possible to ask for a source; page created by an IP... *sigh* TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:22 & 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--Maybe he'll loan 'em to me, 'cause I'm about ready to shoot myself over this. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WebleyCartridges.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 "Edit this 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I left the revolver unlinked, because none of the pix here or here match the pic of the 1874 NWMP model in Barnes (tho there appears to be a family resemblance). If you can source, or better yet offer pix... If you do have (or get) pix, will you also add here, if you think it's appropriate? (I'm a bit split over whether a pic really fits there.) Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More great news! A DYK! Am I having a good week, or what? =] Time to play the lottery... ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:15 & 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start the .44 Bulldog page, let me ask if you've seen a predominance of Bulldog or Bull Dog? Barnes has it Bull Dog, but it appears Bulldog is the preference on WP. (Am I keeping too many balls flying at once, here? ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suits. I can redirect any Bull Dogs I find, & I haven't saved yet, which is why I asked. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I've done as much detail work as my head can handle for awhile... ;) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		I nominate you, for your work on .476 Enfield, .442 Webley, and .450 Adams, just for a start. Making possible not one, but two DYKs in a week, you earned it. (For my having the nerve to nominate myself twice in so short a time, I will, of course, claim the other half of this, too. ;D) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC) (BTW, thanks for other one. I'd have given this sooner, but I couldn't recall where I gave it last...)[reply]

On 6 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Bulldog revolver, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Barnes, Cartridges of the World, 10th ed. lists that as an alternate name. My guess would be that it's a common designation in Germany, Austria and the like, where it's a not uncommon chambering for combination guns, drillings, and other break-open designs that prefer a rimmed cartridge. scot (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For three years of conscientious good service to the weaponry task force of the Military history WikiProject, please accept the Military history WikiChevrons --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! You have no idea how much that means to me. I truly appreciate it! Commander Zulu (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! Keep up the very good work :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Webley Revolver - well-sourced, and nice use of images as well. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the brand categories are, admittedly, a bit small, though there are a handful of other Mausers, so probably potentially 6-10 possible entries for the category. The "by country" categories do have some cross-use in that the fit into both the "X by country" and "Weapons of X" categories, so an attempt to get those two categories (which often run parallel but don't quite cross over) to interface. Part of it is just that some categories (Rifles, Semi-automatic pistols) were just unmanageably huge with 200+ entries until I started dividing them up. I agree that over-categorising should be avoided, so I'm not trying anything like "Revolvers using moonclips" or "Semi-automatic firearms with fixed magazines" or anything, but by-brand seems to make sense so long as there are, say 6 or more possible entries. And by-country just seems to make sense overall, not necessarily as an exclusive category, but it's good to be able to compare platforms across country, so a noob doesn't need to stare at a list of 300 pistols and wonder if any of them are French. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really can categorise redlinks though, and I don't think there's a precedent/format for just typing redlinks into the Category page. To some degree, I'd just be confident that, as Wiki folks run out of old guns that need articles, they'll slowly fill in the obscure ones, variants, etc. So far as by-country: there is still the fact that even smaller countries have made at least a few firearms, and I believe it's helpful to be able to track those down. If nothing else, it's kind of neat for folks to look at a "By country" category and say "huh, Poland made a revolver? Who knew?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Commander Zulu. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the intent is not just to dump things and leave them. I've been fine-tuning as I go along, and when I slow down on articles I go back and fix what others haven't yet. Today I took a minute to fix the Roth-Steyr M1907 and Bodeo Model 1889‎ articles, and though they could still use more citations, pics, etc. I think they're both definitely notable and worth having. Most of the articles are similarly useful to the overall development of WP:GUNS and related projects, and in the long-term they're definitely articles that would have to be added some day. Hunting them down in other languages isn't the neatest way to get them, at first, but it does tie all the wikis together. Will continue to fine-tune what I've dredged up so far. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user is trying to add an obscure film reference and has been edit warring over it. As you have been involved in these pop culture discussions in the past, I'd hoped you would have something to add to this. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up on Nukes4Tots's contribs simply because he has begun WP:Hounding me, vandalizing my talkpage and reverting me on a page I've worked on for years and which he has never visited before, and accusing ME of edit-warring there. The guy's obviously out to wreck my good rep, and I'm just advising folks to be aware of the way he communicates with other editors (User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 1), his history of blocking for edit-warring, and the case for his being a sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots/Archive). Just FYI. He knows a lot about his subject, and while his attacks on me do indeed annoy, his capacity to drive away contributors whose pleasure in editing is spoiled by bullying is of greater concern. DavidOaks (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Commander Z, for your quick and helpful response to my query. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, sorry, but if you'd seen the editor's other contributions you'll possibly forgive a bit of snippiness... Good luck on your renaming effort. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to revert, but see discussion Talk:Sawed-off shotgun#Short shotgun?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen much from them, same as you. I think GCA has JC who left his grubby marks on Gun Politics in Australia a couple of months ago, but its like the journalists who used him last year were re-vivifying a corpse because he certainly isn't showing much life. A number of us have tried to get responses from GCA but even membership enquiries don't get replies.

NCGC is a bit different. They were never a membership organisation in the usual sense, more like a clutch of activists (like CLASS). When one of them wants to have a bash, they do. Samantha Lee has gone quiet I think because her government job means she has to have a lower profile. Chapman is using non-membership to pretend he is 'objective' for research. Browne occasionally writes something. In the glory days a bunch of organisations like the PHA and AMA afiliated but never invited public membership and except the mobile number on press releases never even published an email. Their website was hosted at Chapman's university but was taken down in about 2000.

If you want to email privately, thinkfocus at iinet dot net dot au.ChrisPer (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting is quite untenable in practice. We cannot demand that people join the project before suggesting changes to articles, or that members of the project be immune to blocks; recall what happened to Esperanza when it adopted that sort of insular attitude. You are concerned about our prestige, and I sympathize with that; but your proposal would cost us not only our reputation, but the support of the community as a whole. I'm not willing to endanger the project merely to satisfy some arbitrary threshold of propriety.

More to the point, I haven't seen anything particularly harmful in these proposals, even if I don't agree with some of them. The word limit one, in particular, strikes me as a reasonable compromise here; all we'd be doing is restating what is already a Wikipedia-wide guideline, and we could drop the entire set of (not very consistent) proposed subsections by reducing the question purely to one of optimal section length rather than section layout. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commander, Someone with your editing record should be aware by now that calling someone's well intended action "one of the biggest loads of bollocks I've ever had the misfortune to witness" as you did here is a violation of a number of policies. While you may be frustrated, it is inappropriate and continuing this behavior can lead to a block. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Zulu, I don't suppose you could send me an e-mail, there's something important that I'd like to talk with you about. It involves a number of other people too, and we'll be discussing something I think you'll like.--LWF (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check on the proposed deletion of the redirect of USFA Custer Battlefield Gun please? You were part of the AfD debate that proposed the redirect to Colt Single Action Army so I want to make sure the action is what you had in mind. Personally I think the DASHbot is mistaken. But since I was the article creator, I think it's appropriate someone else look into this. Thank you. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I rewrote and reposted because I got a "loss of session data" warning. Please see below. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USFA Custer Battlefield Gun redirect has been proposed for deletion by DASHbot which says it does not link to an article in the main namespace. It redirects to Colt Single Action Army which is the outcome of an AfD in which you participated. Since I was the article creator, perhaps it's more appropriate for someone else to look into this to be sure it fits with the AfD intentions. Thank you. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MER1Muzzle.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MER1ActionLeft.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Martini-EnfieldsFull.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SMLE Mk III.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:26, 1 December 2015 (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) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Webley Revolver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a British Empire Project member interested in colonial or military history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[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) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[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) 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield revolver is having a ACR reassessment. Hopefully we can find someone to give this one some attention. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]