→Now u have the proof: new section |
|||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
== Now u have the proof == |
== Now u have the proof == |
||
Please go to the article allied warcrimes during ww2 and check out the dicussion regarding |
Please go to the article allied warcrimes during ww2 and check out the dicussion regarding POWs, and then read how enigma summarized this on milhist. Then u will finally see where the problem is. Please take the time. [[User:Blablaaa|Blablaaa]] ([[User talk:Blablaaa|talk]]) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:03, 9 July 2010
![]() I'm a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Feel free to contact me with any sort of military history issue you might have and I'll do my best to help. That said, for some matters you might find you get can get a better and faster response from the wide range of experts on the WikiProject's talk page. Either way, feel free to leave me a message. |
68-pdr article
I've started the review of this, not much to do. Talk:68-pounder 95 cwt/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for 68-pounder 95 cwt
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
New Support for Signs
You might want to note Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Is a noticeboard a reliable source.3F. Consensus is that signs from known and credible publishers are considered reliable enough to be used in Featured Articles. If you ever have a FAC that cites a sign, you may want to keep this link handy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- There certainly is no such consensus in that discussion. I would be cautious about making false claims of consensus; better to err on the side of caution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, let's take a little sampling of opinion, shall we?
- User:Nev1 - As far as signs are concerned, they should be treated like any other source; if the producer is considered reliable (for example information boards at English Heritage sites, or local historic sites maintained by local groups) they should be considered reliable in the same way a book produced by the same people would.
- User:Malleus Fatuorum - Depending on whose noticeboard it it, I don't see any reason on why it shouldn't be considered reliable.
- User:Redtigerxyz - If a sign-board is put by an known official party, then IMO it must be considered a RS. It is like placing information on a website by the official party.
- Then there's me, and you know what I think.
- That's four in favor, one with a neutral comment, one saying (I paraphrase) "if nobody disagrees, then I'm fine with it," and none against...which is a consensus, mate. I even DECLARED a consensus there and nobody objected or disagreed. And you're not a part of that discussion, so what are you doing here? Little bit of Wikihounding? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you gentlemen, thank you. I have commented at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, let's take a little sampling of opinion, shall we?
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
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) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Halkett boat
I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review.[1] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Naming of converted guns
Before we get into an edit war, I would like you to consider the following : Concerned guns were often described, if appropriate typesetting was available, in terms of the new dimension over the old dimension, which I can't reproduce here. Hence 80 over 68 -pr. R.M.L. 5 tons. If the appropriate typesetting was not available, that was expressed simply as 80-pr of 5 tons. Have a look at the diagram which accompanies RML 64 pounder 71 cwt gun denoting a conversion from 8 inch to 64-pounder standard. There was no such thing as 68-pr of 5 tons and I've never seen mention of such a thing. Hence your assertion is inaccurate, and misstates what the naming standards of the day actually were. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry that you disagree, but I've got quite a few books that use the term RML 68-pounder. I've added a ref for a book I have to hand at the mo and removed the 5 ton bit (as that isn't included), although you must admit that there would be a case for including it from the online source. If the appropirate typesetting wasn't available, then sure they might use the 80pdr only, but if it was available they also included 68. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
For your help
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your hard work on the 'Mystery Rifle' Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
Re discussion on Milhist talk page
Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately the attitude on display is par for the course, but hopefully your timely reminder will have some positive effect. EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Henges
I've cleaned up the links that were wrong so they are now sensible. But rather than delete henge monument, I now think it and the other pages should all be merged into henge, i.e. henge enclosure, henge monument and hengiform monument should all be merged into henge. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
lol
I put that there as a joke m8 :¬)
If you read the DOD definition of Tactical Diversion it says "see Diversion"
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I smirked when I read it : )
- Just trying to keep the conversation in as much order as is possible. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any chance you, as the most severely neutral neutral, can archive all that "Noob" "??????" "F****G" stuff if he isnt going to strike it out or delete it himself ?
- It really isn't nice to look at lol
- Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, but I'm afraid I have a personal policy of not editing/censoring other people's comments (excluding formatting, vanadalism or tidy ups). I had been planning on requesting (again) that he strikes them though. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK - I have jsut seen the new postings about it so am leaving it up to the group unless someone asks me directly for comment :¬)
- Chaosdruid (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to comment as well of course, but I understand if you've had enough!. He has just struck the comments btw (well, he tried). Ranger Steve (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Definition of terms
Hi
I realised that the definitions of terms such as operational objective and others may need refs and sources. I have added some to the Tactical victory article.
Before continuing can you have a quick look and make sure I have not messed it up.
I am asking you to do this in readiness for letting others know I am trying to clean up these articles and posting on the Milhist pages.
I realsie that this is not a good time to start hacking at the articles after the recent incident but it does strike me that there are definite needs such as the lack of sources - this one in particular as it only has one ref - a book on naval operations.
thanks
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
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) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
henges
Hi
I just spoke to the head of research at English Heritage
He advises me that they are in the process of reddefining thier terms and have come to the same conclusions we did
They are dispensing witht the word monument due to the reasons I stated - confusion over the "raising a thing as a monument" and "a site which we are treating as a monument" (which includes village sites etc.)
He told me that their definitions are used by archaeologists as well.
Their new definitions will be:
- Mini-henge <20m
- Henge => 20m
- Henge-enclosure >300m
He says the team that is dealing with the new definitions should have a new set out in the next month or two. THey will be dropping "monument" from all their classifications.
He told me that the most recent books are
- Bradley - The prehistory of Britain and Ireland 2007
- Josh Pollard (editor) - Prehistoric Britain: and in particular the chapter by Vicky Pollard
Seems like we got it right then lol
Chaosdruid (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- LMAO :¬)
- Yup - dunno if you agree to referring the the smaller henges as mini-henges just yet but I suppose we should technically wait for them to agree with us so we at least have a quotable source lol
- I take it you are an archaeologist of some description ?
- Chaosdruid (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope - my name comes frorm my youth when I had a chaotic evil cleric - I used the name when I made a couple of tracks at a studio we used to own amd my partner (business) was a druid - he was married in a druidic ceremony after the "lawful" one. Best part was when we had to get a three ton blue welsh stone into an Oak copse at the bottom of his land although I don't really like the human sacrifice part lol.
- I used to plant lots of stands of "three trees" all around Norfolk where I live now - normally Oak Ash and Elm and I have Stonehenge on my desktops if that qualifies :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Now u have the proof
Please go to the article allied warcrimes during ww2 and check out the dicussion regarding POWs, and then read how enigma summarized this on milhist. Then u will finally see where the problem is. Please take the time. Blablaaa (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)