User talk:Mkpumphrey

Hello Mkpumphrey! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Cornell Rockey 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Cornell Rockey 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Diana Quinn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Army Group Courland

Thanks for all the work you did on this one. Can you please also provide citations, i.e. where you got all that information from? I will not delete your additions, but for a good Wikipedia article, the main facts at least should have inline citations. Thanks MadMaxDog 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my fault. You did provide some citations. MadMaxDog 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontefract Castle

Thanks for the complement, but most of it was written by you. BTW I have had the fighting in the city of Berlin on my "to do" list, since I expanded the other sections, but I ran out of steam, and other things seem to get in the way (like the re-write of the Battle of Halbe). I am very glad that someone has tackled it, because the article was unbalanced (all bread and no meat in the sandwich) and it is much easier to chip in more information if most of the details are already written. :-)

As a kid I spent an inordinate amount of time studying castles, to such an extent that even now, by looking at an English castle I can still usually date any part of them by the architecture to the nearest 50 years. However I think my only link to Pontefract Castle in the Wikipedia project was from Robert Lilburne (Pun intended). --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin

Page sizes should not go over 32K. This page is now at 39K. I think that the Battle of Berlin section is becoming too German intensive. It should be more about the Soviets who after all had the initiative and were fighting the battle on their terms. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhapse you would like to move the paragraph into Bombing of Berlin in World War II. But if you do I think that the 18th should be changed to the 15th and the online book I have put on the BoB talk page be used as a reference. I did not appreciate until I read yesterday it that this bombing (with the refrences given) this could be seen the first action of the cold war. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Latin numerals for all German units, and some authors like Ziemke use them (see the map [1]). However I fought a loosing battle over this issue over the Battle of Halbe (see Talk:Battle of Halbe#Numbers of units). I think it makes it clear if one army is listed as 3rd and the the other as III. However only yesterday I went throught the Battle of Stalingrad [2] and used words for the German Armies to distinguish them from the Soviet ones. The reason for Corps being in Latin numbers is traditional and is followed by almost all military historians (and is in one of the guidlines). --Philip Baird Shearer 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a good idea because all the military histories I have read about the Battle of Berlin date it from the 16th. Indeed the arguments are that there are only three crucial dates in the battle. The initial attack on April 16th, the breakout on the April 18th by Konev, the 25th because of the breakout by Rokossovsky and the Soviet American linkup meant that the war was won. After that it was all over bar the killing. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Reitsch flew in in a Storch but was flown out by another pilot in a Arado 96 which landed and turned around for close to intimidate take off. I am fairly sure that it was not from the Tiergarten but from Unter den Linden, but I have not found a source for that. BTW I deliberately put the wording on the outfight vague because I did not want to put in this much detail and some sources say she flew the plane out.

It is I suppose possible that the street now called Strasse des 17 Juni (a definate post war name) was then also part of UdL in which case that would square the circle (same street but in the Tiergarten) but according to the 17 article it was called "Charlottenburger Chaussee" during the war (which makes sense to me), so back to square 1. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my cut and past into Battle in Berlin. I have put back the text you wrote and I cut out of Battle of Berlin. It gives us a whole new sandpit to play in :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be moved if there is a better name. Add anything you want, but expect it to be "edited unmercifully" :-o --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deserved

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent work in what was a serious hollow in treatment of History of Italy in English Wikipedia, the entry Italian Social Republic. Attilios 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army Group Courland (2)

Please see Talk:Army Group Courland#At capitulation AGC comanded by Gilpert or Hilpert --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Iceland

You seem to have taken text from http://stonebooks.com/history/iceland.shtml verbatim and put it into the Occupation of Iceland article. This would seem to be a copyright violation. Unless you can explain it some other way I will have to delete the article. Haukur 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning: "You seem to have taken text from http://stonebooks.com/history/iceland.shtml verbatim and put it into the Occupation of Iceland article. This would seem to be a copyright violation. Unless you can explain it some other way I will have to delete the article. Haukur 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)," please feel free to delete away. I could spend some time on the subject, find some alternative sources, and re-write it. But I just saw an "open link" and filled it. I probably should have left it alone. The only thing that intrigued me about the whole subject was what the "occupation of Iceland" was called. Most sources appear to agree that the "invasion" was Operation Fork. But the "occupation" is identified in Wikipedia as Operation Alabaster and Operation White Falcon. Neither name appears to be supported. I will leave this subject to you and I wish you well. Mkpumphrey 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it, then. I hope to eventually write an article on the subject myself and the page you used looks like a useful source. Operation Fork was the invasion operation, Operation Alabaster was the replacement of the Royal Marines by the Army. I doubt that the occupation as such had a particular name. Haukur 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Willbraham Watson Ford

Should his second name be spelled with one or two "l"s? The London Gazette server is acting up right now, but I find the spelling with one "l" appearing four times during WWI, and get no hits with the two "l" spelling. Choess 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have several sources which indicate one "l" (Wilbraham), please feel free to make correction. I have found very little on this gentleman. My primary interest in him is that he was involved in Iraqforce. Thank you! Mkpumphrey 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, sources seem to be hard to come by: most of the references to him on the web or Google Books seem to be by his initials. I just ran him through the Gazette to see if he'd been decorated. What source are you using, BTW? It would be nice to have an explicit reference in his article. Yours, Choess 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note about both spellings until a source can be determined as being THE SOURCE with the correct spelling. If you think "Willbraham" versus "Wilbraham" is bad, try getting World War II-related numbers that match from various Italian sources. I have some books which were provided to me by the Italian government ("just the facts" type of books) and the numbers STILL do not coordinate from one chapter to the next. Mkpumphrey 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Europe

Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino were not occupied during WW2; please see the articles on those countries for more details. Serbia,Slovenia, and Montenegro did not exist as independent states during the war, and the Independent State of Croatia was a Axis puppet state which was not recognised internationally as separate from Yugoslavia. Please be more careful when including material. Grant | Talk 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the History of San Marino, I offer the following: "The last occupation of the country was during 1944. San Marino was officially neutral in World War II. However, German forces used the country to retreat through, and they were followed by Allied forces. The Allied armies only remained in occupation for as long as militarily necessary." Mkpumphrey 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While tou are fixing things, why not remove some of the other "non-countries" on the list? When exactly were Belarus or the Ukraine recognized as nation states during the 1940s? The "Independent State of Croatia" had more countries recognizing it internationally than either of these examples. In the 1940s, Belarus and the Ukraine were just occupied parts of the Soviet Union. And then there are the Channel Islands on a list of "occupied countries" . . . I do not mind the comments. But, please, try to be thorough. Mkpumphrey 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eustace Le Fleming

I presume this article was an error. I can only find details of Roger Eustace Le Fleming, which you seem to have already created. I put a {{prod}} tag on it but I can speedy it if you prefer. Leith p 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECT . . . thank you! Mkpumphrey 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SD nomination of war generals

Sorry about the SD template on the two soldier articles, I didn't think to read their ranks... My apologies there. I got a little used to kids making articles about their grandfathers who never rose past the rank of private... well, regards, †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Someone was kind enough to indicate just about every officer involved with Iraqforce. Surprisingly (to me), very few of these gentlemen had existing Wikipedia articles and material on most of them is often rather hard to find. Long story short, I am just trying to connect the dots between multiple Iraqforce commanders. One of the more interesting connections was a guy I stumbled on who was responsible for invading Madagascar AND Iceland. Mkpumphrey 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in World War II/Occupied Europe

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Grant | Talk 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? Grant | Talk 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you mean. I have reinstated San Marino to Occupied Europe as it apparently was occupied for several weeks by retreating German troops (although none of the relevant Wikipedia articles mention this). I have also reinstated the sub-national entities, because it looks odd to describe "UK" and "USSR" as Nazi-occupied when they were major allies, it's better to be precise, and the Channel Islands are not, technically speaking, part of the UK.

Basically my rationale is to use the smallest contemporary geo-political unit which is accurate. In all other cases, whole countries, or the vast majority of them, were occupied Grant | Talk 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already list Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia separately. Along with Belarus and Ukraine, that doesn't leave much of the USSR that was occupied, does it? Grant | Talk 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East African Campaign

Hi. Got to give the guy the benefit of the doubt - he's an Italian university professor (as you might have guessed from the stream of Italian he has written in the guerilla article - I assume he will translate!). Generally in the English Wikipedia this sort of campaign article is understandably very Allied-centric so I'm really happy that an Italian with Italian sources is taking an interest - the tidying of the stilted English is a small price to pay in my view as long as there is quality in the information and it is satisfactorily referenced. May have to have a discussion with him on this latter point in due course! Sometimes one is pleasantly surprised....a French user of Wikimedia has taken the laborious map I made for the northern campaign and turned it into a pretty svg file - very professional (although I have to say I was rather proud of my original effort which I thought had a certain earthy charm!). By the way, it would be really nice to have a map for the southern front... any ideas? Keep up the good work! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a "map for the southern front," that is difficult. How about a map of the re-taking of British Somaliland? Mkpumphrey 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think that a map of the retaking of British Somaliland is much different from that of the taking....the brits even used the same three battalions which had previously evacuated!

Re the insightes section (your comment on my talkpage). It reminds me of a list of obscure Trivial pursuits facts. Or maybe that quiz show on US TV (can't remember the name) where the contestants are given the answers and have to supply the question ("What was the first British colony to fall to enemy forces in World War II?"). I claim no interest in it at all. Not sure whether the crazy Finn or mad Italian contributed. What I normally do in such circumstances is to indicate an intent with reasons on the talk page saying that I'll go ahead in [two] days absent any dissent. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

In the article List of Eastern Fleet ships you've added a number of external links within the article. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember, point 3. It appears to ban the use of external links within the body of the article - if I've got that wrong, let me know. The approach has been to leave "redlinks" to highlight missing articles, to prompt either new articles or linking to (for example) ship classes. Sorry to be a pedant. Folks at 137 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Englebert (tyre manufacturer)

Hi Mkpumphrey. I was just wondering why you removed Englebert (tyre manufacturer) from Category:Tire manufacturers? Thanks. DH85868993 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the site, it indicates that Englebert "was" a manufacturer. The "Tire manufacturers" category looked to be a list of current manufacturers (even if currently owned or operated by others). I attempted to access the two websites provided at the Englebert site and neither worked (for me). If this is incorrect, please accept my apology and please add the company back in to the list. I was not trying to harm the Englebert site. I did add Englebert to the "Formula One" categoty. Thank you for being interested. Mkpumphrey 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what it might have been. I agree it's not clear whether Category:Tire manufacturers is intended to include only current manufacturers, or both current and former manufacturers. (In my experience, most categories tend to include both). I'll check it out and put Englebert back in the category if it's appropriate. Thank you for being so polite. DH85868993 16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Alfred Dimoline

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Alfred Dimoline, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.generals.dk/general/Dimoline/William_Alfred/Great_Britain.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British 11th Division

I see you have done a lot of work on the British African divisions of World War II. However the (reconstituted?) British 11th Division fought in the Burma Campaign as part of the British Fourteenth Army: and is usually called the "11th East African Division"(second paragraph). Could we discuss what to do with this reorganisation on the talk page of the Talk:British Divisions in World War II? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to make any corrections you think ae required. Other than a book I once bought about Chandra Bose, the Burma Campaign IS NOT one I know much about. There was an EXISTING mention of the "11th East African Division" fighting in Burma in the article. I just added the link. HOWEVER, it is my understanding that the 11th East African Division was disbanded after the East African campaign (and I only know this because it is written in Wikipedia). I noticed the "East Africa/Burma" disconnect right away and I "meant" to get back to this one. Thank you for noticing. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqforce

I don't see a problem with the Iran article. As I understand it the chronology was 1. 10th Indian Div arrived at Basra -> Anglo-Iraqi War -> Habforce leaves Transjordan and is attached to Iraqforce when it reached Habbaniya -> 8 Indian Div starts to arrive -> Syria-Lebanon campaign -> Arab Legion sent back to Transjordan ->Iran Invasion. I think the texts reflect this now....? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your chronology is correct. However, the Iran article currently indicates: "the British Iraq Command (known as Iraqforce)". Was Iraqforce ever known as the "British Iraq Command"? I do not know. That is what I was attempting to add (albeit poorly) into the "Iraqforce" article. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey

Hmm. Don't know. I'll look into it. Regards Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Long Knives vandalism

You're welcome; actually, Wknight94 (talk · contribs) reverted the vandalism. I just let you know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Dönitz FAR

Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Country Club Mall

An editor has nominated Country Club Mall, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Club Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added information from the German Wikipedia article (which I mention in the notes). However, I already discvered an inconsistency with something that the German article indicated. I do intend to cite sources. However, if I read what you have written above, I should first suggest changes in the article's talk page. I must admit that I have not seen this done typically, but I am happy to do so. Is there an acceptable period to wait for a reply or comment after an intention to make a change is posted? Many of the articles I look at are not particularly popular and heavily perused. Thanks for your assistance! Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Compass

Sorry I didn't respond to your note earlier but I've been away for 6 weeks. I didn't write that sentence but I did reorganise the article with new sub headings and may have cut and pasted it to its current position (thus getting the "credit" for its inclusion). On the subject of adding a citation tag, there are no rules. If you think it needs more then stick in a tag and see if it stirs anything up! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Concerning adding citation tags, I was getting lots (and lots) of stern warnings from a "Jeff G." Whoever he is, he arbitrarily suspended me for translating material directly from the German site without providing citations (the German site had no citations to translate). Oh well. Concerning Operation Compass, I doubt the "BCS" organization described in the Derna section (with 50 M11 tanks) ever existed. Unfortunately Graziani was promised much (i.e., 1000 medium tanks) and some posters may confuse promised units with real units.

I plan to check the Operation Compass article again, but I just re-read a book which describes the initial British attack on the Italian camps (War Without Hate). One of the big points made was that the British forces slipped through between two of the camps and attacked the Italian positions from the rear. I am not sure that this is indicated. Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that the Italian strongpoints were widely separated and that the British attacking force planned to pass "..... through the gap between Sofafi and Nibeiwa. A brigade from the Indian Division supported by Infantry tanks of 7th Royal Tank Regiment would then attack Nibeiwa from the west while the Armoured Division protected their northern flank. Once Nibeiwa was captured a second Indian brigade, gain supported by 7th RTR would attack the Tummars. Meanwhile the Matruh Garrison Force (3rd battalion Coldstream Guards plus some artillery) would contain the enemy camp at Maktila. Assuming a successful outcome, Sidi Barrani would be attacked on the second day and a westward exploitation would follow." So making it clear that they passed through the Italian lines and attacked from the west (which was the rear). Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second English Civil War

If during a copy edit you split a paragraph in two for style reasons, as you did to the Second English Civil War article, and there is a citation for the paragraph at the end of the original parent paragraph, please remember to include the same citation all of the child paragraphs. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! I will do what you indicate. I was just reading for interest but I just see so many paragraphs and/or sentences that run on and on. But I do see that the clarity of the citation needs to be maintained.

In addition, sometimes there are "dead links" when the person (place or thing) has an existing "link-able" article. Thanks! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Colonial Empire

Hi

You have added a lot of material to Italian Colonial Empire. Can you please add the references for your additions? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly adding links the Italian Empire article to other existing articles I hae found and sometimes adding a minimal amount of text from those articles where it seems relevant. I will gladly look to add references from the original articles. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article really needs more info about colonies, colonial policies, less about military details of wars. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can find of a non-war nature. I do know of a book I have that has some limited information on Italian public works projects in East Africa. Also, I do remember seeing an existing piece which listed Colonial Governors, etc. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Battle of Amba Aradam & Battle of the Ogaden

Hi. I've nominated Battle of Amba Aradam, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 5, where you can improve it if you see fit. It would be great if you can add more references to the article. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Battle of the Ogaden, listed under July 7. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Mkpumphrey. Yes, there are lots of things to write about. Glad that someone is filling in the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage. I hope you're enjoying the typing. Minor "fixes" take time, so just do what you can at the moment. You can always come back and type in more. I don't know what 1928 agreement you're referring to, but I'll let you decide what to write and when. Just wanna remind you that new articles are usually featured as DYKs within 5 days of each article's creation date. Usually there's a grace period of an extra day or two, but the admins running DYK don't always wait too long. If you want your nice new articles featured on MainPage as DYKs, please pace yourself accordingly. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please feel free to nominate your own good work at Template talk:Did you know. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to articles

Hi,

I noticed that during your edits on the Italian invasion of Egypt article, you have essentially been reverting my edits which have removed duplicate links.

The general policy is that a key word is linked on its first mention and not on every mention of it. Examples of where this is lifted is usually towards the end of the article for important things to promote further reading.

Please see, Manual of Style Wikilinks

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no harm intended. I was more concerned that there were hardly any links in this article when I first gave it a look. I am assuming you are talking about the 11th Hussars link. I noticed that link was gone and I thought it was just forgetfulness on my part . . . so I re-added it. In the past, I have sometimes repeated links when they were in different sections. I will re-check and make sure I adhere to the "first mention/one link" policy. Cheers! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems dude, i was even worse when i started off lol :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - Battle of Amba Aradam

On 13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Amba Aradam, 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.

Rudget (logs) 10:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - Battle of the Ogaden

On 13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Ogaden, 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.

Rudget (logs) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page styling

Please be aware that the style for disambiguation pages differs from that for article pages, in particular there should only be one link per line. Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Will not happen again. Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dubious information

Just to point out, you keep adding allot of dubious information to the Italian invasion of Egypt article. For instance:

Facing the Italian invasion was O'Connor and the ever-improving but still woefully incomplete Western Desert Force. Major-General Noel Beresford-Peirse commanded the under strength 4th Indian Infantry Division and, [b]as of 3 September, Major-General William Gott had been placed in command of the under strength 7th Armored Division (the "Desert Rats"). It was Gott's former command, the Support Group, that would provide much of the "light covering forces" that actually met the Italians at the border[/b].[citation needed]

Uncited and incorrect information such as this - Gott did not take command of the 7th Armour until 1941, he was a Brigadier during 1940 and was still so during May 1941 and his command, as proved there the top of the article, was soley the 7th Support Group at the time of the Italian invasion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. When you added Gott (and removed O'Connor?) I misread when Gott became commander of the 7th Armored Division. I saw "September 3" in the srticle for the 7th Armored Division and misread that it was 1940 (and not the correct 1941). My overall goal was to try to briefly explain who Gott was within the Italian invasion of Egypt article. You added his name as one of the primary commanders but never mentioned him within the article.Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian invasion of Egypt

The Italian strength is very confusing. I have the 1990 version of Hunt (which is the same as the original but with a very expanded foreword to give a new perspective following the revelation of the Enigma secret). Hunt says that the Italian force "which crossed the frontier on 15th September" was (my tabulation):

Tenth Army (Graziani)
- XXI Corps
  - 1st Blackshirt Div
  - 2nd Blackshirt Div
  - 63rd Cirene Div
- XXIII Corps
  - 4th Blackshirt Div
  - 64th Catanzaro Div
- Group of Libyan Divs
  - 1st Libyan Div
  - 2nd Libyan Div

+"various other oddments" including "an armoured group"

No mention of the Maletti Group but I see that the Maletti are described in the article as being 6 Libyan battalions and I can therefore imagine that since it was an ad hoc formation, the battalions maybe were drawn from the two regular divisions and put in trucks.

He describes that the two Libyan and the 4th Blackshirts were effectively taken out in the first two days as was the armoured group (which he says had the name "The red flames of Italy"). The 64th was caught undeployed during a "routine relief" by 4th Armoured Brigade and surrendered. He says that the units that ended bottled up in Bardia were 1st and 2nd Blackshirts, 62nd Marmaraica and 63rd Cirene Divs plus a company of M13 tanks. He says the garrison was commanded by Bergonzoli, "previously commander of XXIII Corps". I wonder whether Hunt got the Corps names switched - why would you put the XXIII Corps commander in charge of what was XXI Corps plus a division?

In Tobruk was 61st Sirte and there was a "counterattack force" under General Cona built around XX Corps consisting of 60th Sabrata Div and the Babini Armoured Group (2 medium tank battalions (=I think M13) and a Bersaglieri Regiment) based at Mechili (I guess this is the BCS).

He also says that at Beda Fomm the Italians had "the better part of four battalions of medium tanks but that one battalion had crews that had never seen the M13 before."

In his foreword to the 1990 edition Hunt asks the question whether his story (and its accuracy) had stood the test of time (apart from distortions required to conceal official secrets in 1966). He states that he had read all the official histories and could only find one discrepancy (relating to the sinking of the Ankara). He's generally pretty confident about the British intelligence's success in determining the opposition's order of battle. Having said that 1. He would wouldn't he? - It was his job! 2. He only arrived in the desert in June 1941 (having been in Greece) so his description of these events is not first hand. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your question concerning Bergonzoli makes me wonder whether much of the chaos on the Italian side was of their own making. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Slovak-Hungarian War worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19: 06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopian military history

Hi! I've been following your commendable work on the battles of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, & noticed that you recently linked to the article Army of the Ethiopian Empire. The topic of this article duplicates Military history of Ethiopia, although its contents would be better matched to an article entitled Military history of the Axumite Kingdom. This leads me to wonder -- & ask your opinion on -- whether it would be best to have a series of 3 articles here: one on the history of the Axumite kingdom, another on the medieval empire (from circa 1300 to 1850), & the last on the military of Ethiopia from Tewodros II onwards (the existing article on the Military history). This would conform to the general state of the evidence -- there is little for the period AD 700 - 1300 -- & the pre-1850 military is so different from the military since that date that I think it makes sense to divide the topic there. Of course, doing this would mean that a number of links would need to be redone... -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% your call. I made the link mainly because the "Army of the Ethiopian Empire" article does touch (even if only a little bit) on the more modern conflicts. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for your work on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War

		The Original Barnstar
		Hey! I've noticed your substantial expansion of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article, as well as on its battles, and I just wanted to give you a barnstar in appreciation. There aren't many with the knowledge or access to the sources to expand these articles so substantially, so it's great to see someone like you come along and improve them. Keep on doing what you're doing, there's plenty who appreciate it. ;) — ዮም \| (Yom) \| Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Abraham Lincoln assassination, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference I added. The reference was related to text I added. The added text was removed by you for some "unexplained reason" but you left the added reference. I am just being thorough. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The operative words in my message above are "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." If you had done that (as you should always add an edit summary), there would have been no confusion, I wouldn't have posted the above message, and it would have save both of us some time. Ward3001 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand why you are citing my removing text "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" after you yourself removed text "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll take another look, I gave a reason in my edit summary. The information I removed was non-notable. The name of the stable owner is irrelevant. Perhaps you thought it notable because you share the same name, but Wikipedia requires more than that for notability. If you wish to re-add the name it is important that you have a good reason. As the edit was, there was no reason. Ward3001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to know why the person who was to hold the horse but did not hold the horse is important enough to include in the article. I must assume all would have been different had he held the horse. And I must admit I also wonder why it is important to include the history of the nickname "Peanut" (the important peanut salesman).

James Pumphrey (as is documented in books and a Washington Star newspaper of the day) was a suspected southern sympathizer and was questioned by local authorities concerning his involvement. He held a vigil for Mary Surratte. He is actually no direct relative of mine and unfortunately he did not have a nickname like "Peanut" that would make him noteworthy.Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with you that including Peanuts' name is unimportant, as is Pumphrey's name. Feel free to remove the reference to Peanuts' name without interference by me. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book on the Lincoln assassination, and some of the more trivial details of the events must be omitted. I deal with edits as I see them. I wasn't revising the entire article, just that one edit. Also, Pumphrey's southern sympathies are not especially noteworthy; there were lots of Southern sympathizers at the time, but if we added them all simply because they had some remote relationship to the events surrounding the assassination the article would possibly increase in size tenfold (e.g., I would not see the need to include the name of the person who sold Booth his shoes if he were a Southern sympathizer, even though quite indirectly it relates to the assassination because Booth's shoes had a role in his injuries as he jumped from the balcony.). We have to draw the line somewhere in an encyclopedia article. Neither Pumphrey nor Peanuts is notable. Ward3001 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I will leave the removal of material to you. You apparently think you know what is important and what is not important in this world. I never intend to edit the "important" items you edit like: the E.T. article, the Lindsey Lohan article, or anything written about Natalie Portman. But are there subjects you routinely "protect" about which you could warn me? I will make every effort to avoid them. Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice. I have no idea what you mean by "routinely 'protect'", but the only thing I try to protect are Wikipedia's policies and the quality of its articles. And you might want to review WP:NPA. I don't believe you crossed the line, but you got close. But if this is the end of our message exchanges, no harm done. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what sort of nanny would seriously write: "I don't believe you crossed the line, but you got close." If you are serious, you may want to lighten up.

Clearly the material you recently removed needed removal (some juvenile vandalism about Lincoln and Nixon?). And I commend you for your part in removing it. However, I still find your process for deciding what is important and what is not important to be arbitrary at best ... apparently annoying to many.

Some things might be added to Wikipedia just because they are interesting ... not necessarily to you ... but to others who do not share your interest in Science Fiction (?). I am guessing at Science Fiction as an interest because of the E.T. and Natalie Portman articles you have edited.

Anyway, I recently read a book about the 1900 Boxer Rebellion (The Boxer Rebellion: The Dramatic Story of China's War on Foreigners that Shook the World in the Summer of 1900, by Diana Preston). I had noticed that the current article in Wikipedia on this subject could use some help (both with organization and content). In the book written by Ms. Breston, there was a mention of the winds that blew off the desert every year loaded with black particles. These winds fouled everything in Peking. I found this interesting and I was thinking of looking it up again and adding it. But I will not. I have to ask myself: Is this absolutely "critical" to the Boxer Rebellion article? Clearly it is not. But, based on the guidelines you suggest, many Wikipedia articles could shed a good portion of their current content.

Goodbye. I participate in Wikipedia because I enjoy doing it. As I have indicated, I think you provide a great service by offering to remove vandalism. But having someone like you watch over my shoulder makes adding new material of very little interest.Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some things might be added to Wikipedia just because they are interesting: That's a legitimate point. What I suggest in a situation where something might be minimally notable but interesting is to discuss first on the talk page. After a reasonable period of time if there is no serious objection (or a consensus emerges), then go ahead and add it. And that would apply to your edit that I reverted on Abraham Lincoln assassination. If other editors support you I would not object to your re-adding the information.

I'm not quite sure why you think I'm "looking over your shoulder" based on one edit of yours I reverted. But as far as I know, that's the only time our paths have crossed, and I have not monitored your edits (nor will I). If I gave any impression otherwise, even unintentionally, then I apologize. I hope you'll continue making contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ward3001...

...filed a WP:ANI complaint against me for standing up to his attitude. You might find it interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (and then I'll leave your talk page alone), the complaint was for harrassment of a user, the third time that complaint has been made against him (he was blocked the first two times). Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln assassination

I don't mean to repeatedly bother you regarding this article, and I'll no longer message you about it if you wish, but I wanted to be sure you know my thinking about what you wrote on the talk page. If you present your proposed edit there (I have only speculated about what it might be) and no one else responds in a week or so, that will just leave your opinion and mine. Since my opinion is no more important than yours, I would not object to your adding your proposed material at that point. If other editors express opinions we'll see what sort of consensus emerges (if any), but in that case I would not let my opinion alone be what keeps your edit out of the article. If any of this is not clear, feel free to ask me for more explanation. Otherwise, I'll assume you understand, and I'll not raise the issue any more on your talk page. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome and Thank you as well.

It becomes an obsession sometimes, and as editors we take pride in our work. It is only when we fail to be civil, that we have major problems. As I said before, there was nothing said by any one of you that was too nasty yet. Although I did see a storm begining to brew. I read the comments that both of you made and I still have no idea what the discussion was about. Perhaps I will attempt to be a nuetral observer in your debate. I don't plan to take sides, but I may make some suggestions. Thanks again and Happy Editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I do not believe I will be adding anything to the article about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I have worked with passive aggressive types in the past ... and I have also worked with way too many people with dueling advanced degrees. So I guess the I-will-not-bother-your-future-additions-but-I-cannot-be-held-responsible-for-what-OTHERS-do thing did not impress me as all that genuine. I figured that "somebody" might just sign on with a different user name (BORED3001???) and that a totally unrelated user could endlessly take issue with whatever I added. I hope to avoid this by just not playing. Long story short, thanks for the offer ... but I am hoping you will never be needed as an official "neutral party" for anything I have written. As I have written previously, I just want to be left alone. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. Hope springs eternal. Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-religion

Thank you very much for your note. In response, I too didn't find anything that anti-religous about the label on my page. I think people construed it as such because it featured the word GOD with a red cross through it, coupled with my announcement that I had an interest in atheism.

As for those oh so important 'hot button topics', I personally find Pepsi to have a less distinctive taste than Coca-Cola, and while I agree that Simpson's do rule, I believe Futurama to be just that tiny bit better. --6afraidof7 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks back to you. Concerning Coke, as long as you do not want to force me drink that stuff, we have no issue.

I have suspected that Futurama is good, but it got started when I was traveling alot for work. I never really had a chance to make a connection. I will say that the theme song seems like a keeper. Best Wishes and happy writing! Mkpumphrey (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

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

Minor point

I don't want to stir up conflict between you and me, and this is a minor point that I can live with either way. But I'm curious why you made this edit since you didn't leave an edit summary. The link gives some additional information about King. If there was an article on King, the link would be to his article and would be entirely appropriate. But as I said, I'm just curious and don't plan to challenge the edit. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you created an article on King. Excellent! I assume you'll link it in the assassination article. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you approve. Mr. King seemed to be one of those people who rated at least a small article. If nothing else, the article links two totally unrelated (but very important) historical events with a person who was part of both. (On the other hand, I hope you are okay with my not adding the "Jack the Ripper" suspect who was rounded up after the assassination into the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need Jack the Ripper in the assassination article. Too much controversy about The Ripper as it is. Good work on the King article. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sabin Taft

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Charles Sabin Taft, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/dr_taft.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on assassination page

An editor has persistently changed a bulleted list (that I think you created) about those imprisoned after the assassination. Not only does that change create an inferior format, it deletes some interesting details. You may wish to comment on the talk page here. I can't revert it again because I don't want to violate 3RR. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article. Much appreciated!

I added a bit to the James W. Pumphrey article. It turns out he knew John Surratt and it was Surratt who introduced Pumphrey and Booth. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add your comments to the discussion the talk page, here, so that we can achieve a consensus. Vidor is quite persistent and likely will revert it back unless consensus goes against him. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will add my two cents.

I reverted the material mainly to be able to what I indicated previously: "I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article." Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vidor is reverting again. You really should put your comments on talk page here, not just the edit summary. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citations

Your recent edit on the Allied invasion of Syria article states: "Added from Australian history" however you have provided no citation to back this up. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to include naval info sooner rather than later. Plan to add references. But please feel free to remove my additions if I am too long in adding references. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest i didnt notice that the edit was only done 15 minutes ago, i erroneously thought it was a few hours back but no harm no foul :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on dude, you said you would add citations to the stuff you are adding; you have just added material regarding the aftermath of the Anglo-Iraqi war over an hour ago regarding nationalists who fled helping recruit men to the Waffen SS - where is the evidence to back this up?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did add references to the material I added into the Syria-Lebanon campaign article (see Sea War). HOWEVER, I will admit that I added that last item into the Anglo-Iraqi War directly from the Axis powers article (see the section on Axis co-belligerant Iraq). I thought it wrapped up any "Whatever happened to ... ?" type questions about Rashid Ali. I am guesing you doubt whether Rashid Ali ever went to Germany and formed a government-in-exile there. I will see if I can find a reference for you. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question for you: Why are there zero references for the Rashid Ali al-Gaylani article and zero "citations" or notes about lack of references, etc.? Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other article you bring up have zero relevence to me - theres a bunch of articles am working on and off on, which i would like to see be put through the FAC one day; i just think its important that additions to them should be supported, so when fellow contributors work on the articles they dont remove what might be key information.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be an "adder" rather than a "subtractor." I try not to remove anything if I can help it. Once in awhile, like the Rashid Ali case, I add something from a related article if it seems tie up a loose end. Happy writing! Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor

Please look at the changes proposed for this article by User:GoldDragon and comment on the article's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Crab Bowl

Hi, thanks for your comments and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. As for lacrosse, I made the Maryland Terrapins lacrosse stub, but don't have much motivation to expand it at the moment. Strikehold (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked about lacrosse earlier, I thought I'd let you know I wrote an article on the Johns Hopkins-Maryland rivalry not long ago that you might be interested in. Strikehold (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semien province

Much as I am glad that you are helping to write articles on Ethiopia that might never get written, I'm at a complete loss at why you insist on equating "Semien province" with "Semien Wollo Zone"; they have almost nothing in common, except minor details such as both are located in the Ethiopian highlands, & both having "Semien" -- which means North -- in their names. You might as well link "Semien province" to any article with "North" in it, such as North Dakota! (And the reason I haven't written an article on Semien province yet is that I'd rather wait to create one when I have the time & material to write more than a two-sentence stub that would help no one.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I will leave Semien Province as an empty link. I guess I was so pleased to see additional input on this subject that I did not want to lose any forward progress ... even on a slimly related link like that one. BTW, very much appreciate everything you have written. Best Wishes. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Concerning "Regents" in Ethiopia, is there something I do not know? I always thought the Regent ruled during the minority or incapacity of the real ruler. Examples would be Prince Paul of Yugoslavia or even Admiral Horthy of Hungary. Many of the write-ups about the Ethiopian Regency of Haile Selassie refer to Haile Selassie (or Tafari Mokannen) as the "regent." This really does not work with any definition of Regent that I have seen.

To answer your question, until the 18th century in Ethiopia, as in any country, when the legal ruler was a minor or otherwise unable to rule capably, they would appoint a regent to handle the work of ruling. However at one point in the 18th century, the office of "Regent" became institutionalized & at the same time the Emperor was reduced to a figurehead -- much in the same way in Japanese history the Emperor was a figurehead & real power lay in the hands of the Shogun. (Much of the Zemene Mesafint could be described as warlords fighting each other over who would be Regent.) With Tewodros II, power returned to the hands of the Emperor. It was in the last years of Menelik II that a Regent was once again appointed: in Menelik's case, he was reduced to a mental vegetable (a sad end for such a powerful man); in Iyasu V's case, it was because of his youth, & lack of a formal coronation (as well as the fact he made enemies of the power elite); & in Empress Zewditu's case, because she was a woman (& to appease Ras Tefari, who was carefully maneuvering his way to becoming supreme ruler of Ethiopia). In other words, the reality of the situation was far more complex than it might appear to a casual glance. P.S., Thanks for the kinds words of encouragement. The more I work at the topic, the more holes in Wikipedia's coverage I find -- as well as making me feel that I am not prioritizing my efforts properly. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maychew

Nice work on Battle of Maychew. I was wondering though, what information - if any - came from Barker 1968 (The Civilizing Mission: A History of the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1935-1936)? It's in the references section but not referenced by any of the footnotes. Recognizance (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny one you are. Happy April Fools' Day to you too. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who added it to the references section. So no, it wasn't a joke. If you just added it as a "further reading" kind of thing, that's fine. Recognizance (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Iraqi War

Hi thanks for the contribution to the article, however do you have source information to support your addition? If so can you add it in please. cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still may be able to use it, do you know where on the net you found it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your last question, of course i do - thats how we create a completly sourced article that can be put forth at one point in the future for FAC it also helps proceed past the myth that surrounds the wiki that everything is made up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, please do not leave snide remarks such as "Please READ the reference ... "mechanized" in 1941 Iraq is not what it means now" in the summary descriptions. How can one read the reference if one does not have access to it? Additionally how is the reader suppose to know that "mechanized" doesnt mean the same? Putting inverted commas around it nor the hidden link to motorised infantry gives the reader a clear idea. I would suggest adding a note to article after the first mention of "mechanized" infantry stating clearly that they were motorised infantry from whatever description Lyman gives.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my replies would look draft without quoting you in full i have replied to you on my talkpage. As i will most likely do from now on to future replies on this subject.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian titles

Hi -- I noticed you have been adding English noble titles to various Ethiopian articles. The problem with your practice is that it is greatly at odds with the practice observed in the usual accounts of Ethiopian history & culture -- as well as Ethiopian practice. Ethiopians simply use the titles of "Dejazmach", "Ras", "Negus" & so forth. Substituting them for "Duke", "King" & so forth simply confuses those who are familiar with the subject. I've been reverting your edits -- as you have noticed; I hope you don't mind, & apologize if doing this offends you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are confused because you put using your reversion here "Duke" in first place, not "Dejazmach". Doing so makes it appear to those new to the topic that the Ethiopian practice is to refer to their nobility by English terms -- which is no more correct than to use English titles to refer to Japanese nobility in this way. Even then, the English titles are only a rough equivalent of the Ethiopian ones. If you were to change it to something like "Dejazmach (equivalent to 'Duke' or,in this case 'General')". As for italics, AFAIK I have not changed any of them, & if I did, it was by accident; I'm actually undecided about italicizing these words, & I'm actually inconsistent about italicizing foreign words when editting Wikipedia. Lastly, are you aware that your phrase "Busy boy" comes over as condescending? If it was intentional, I am puzzled at your tone. I have tried to be courteous -- if not friendly -- to you because I honestly appreciate the work you have contributed to these articles, & hope you will continue contributing in this subject area for the indefinite future. -- llywrch (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of points I want to respond to:

You're right about "Duke" & "Dejazmach": it was still early in the morning here when I typed that & hadn't had my caffeine fix yet. I had meant to write "Duke" with "Ras".
As for "wholesale reversions" I only proceeded to doing more than the first one after I left you a note explaining what I was doing; that part of the "be bold" policy at Wikipedia. (Then comes "discuss", which is what we are doing here.) The material on the page does not belong to anyone, so you shouldn't take sweeping reversions personally, no matter how frustrating you may find them; they aren't expected to be directed to anyone, & if they are it may infringe on WP:NPA. But since comments on talk pages are directed towards another person, they may be read in a negative way -- which, again, I believe you did not mean to do. Anyway, I didn't mean to frustrate you with my numerous revisions.
Further about Ethiopian titles: with the exception of "Wagshum" "Shum" can be safely replaced in almost all cases with "governor" -- that's all a "shum" really is. ("Wagshum" is a specific post with a distinctive tradition associated with it.) Another example is "Prince" -- prior to 1950, this doesn't seem to be a concept in Ethiopian hierarchy: the son of the Emperor was known either as a "Dejazmach" or "Ras", or "the son of the Emperor"; after 1950, AFAIK, "Prince" or "Princess" is what they were known by. As for your suggestion about the gloss in the parentheses, that's what I was hoping you'd do.
Which italics are you talking about? I was thinking about edits over the last few days, & if I did then it was an accident. If I had made them before then, I wish you had mentioned this to me sooner, so we could have discussed the matter then. Part of the reason I am inconsistent over the matter -- actually any matter of style -- is due to my belief at the moment over whether it worth discussing. I often tolerate a style because I know there is too much material that needs to be added in this area, & I don't want to delay working on it because I was squabbling with someone over some minor point of style. Sometimes I adopt a specific choice of style for a while, then change my mind because another way makes better sense, & if I remember I will try to go back & make my edits consistent.
About names, (1) I agree with you about those instances where titles are presented as if part of a person's name; & (2) using the shorter version of the name in mentions beyond the first, where it does not confuse the reader. (Actually, it makes good common sense, so I hope you're not asking because of something in my attitude.) FWIW, the Manual of Style shows a moment of intelligence by mentioning that the title can be used in place of the person's name -- one can call Ras Haile Selassie Gugsa simply "the Ras", for example.
Lastly, a lot of the inconsistencies will not go away soon; resolving them depends on a consensus about what the practice should be, & at the moment it appears that the entire WikiProject Ethiopia is yours truly -- which means that anything written in the MOS would simply be an attempt on my part of usurping authority. Most of the other members have either fallen away from Wikipedia or lost interest in the WikiProject. So unless you'd like to help contribute there -- or know someone who can -- articles relating to Ethiopia will continue to have an inconsistent appearance. :-/

I hope this clarifies what my opinion is on these matters. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the barnstar. :) -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that wasn't sarcasm. (I knew that my response could be read that way -- which is why I included the smiley.) I just plug away & hope that I fill enough of the holes that the articles are useful to someone. And you deserve praise for working on those 2nd Italo-Ethiopian war articles; as a result that's one of best-covered episodes in Ethiopian history. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the peasant revolts in Ethiopia: so far the best book I've found so far on the subject has been Gebru Tareke's Ethiopia, Power and Protest: Peasant Revolts in the Twentieth Century, which covers the 3-4 major rebellions between 1945 & 1974. (I'd write those articles, but distilling the information from even one source into a coherent article is far more work -- & requires a large block of time which I rarely have nowadays -- than simply mining sources to improve existing articles.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had a single source to recommend for "pre-1945 modern". There are a number of useful books for various aspects of Ethiopian history back to about 1825, but no one book covers all of the conflicts even for a definite period. (Even Gebru's book omits all mention of the numerous incidents of unrest in the Somali parts of Ethiopia in the 1960s.) At the moment I'm finding it a challenge to gather useful details on Menelik's conquest of southern Ethiopia in the 1880s & 1890s; for some of these campaigns I have little more than the name of the ethnic group/region & the year. -- llywrch (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

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) 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Fritz Grobba

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Fritz Grobba, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765635-2,00.html. As a copyright violation, Fritz Grobba appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Fritz Grobba has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Fritz Grobba and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Fritz Grobba with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Fritz Grobba.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to leave the Time Magazine excerpt there for any time. I was parking it for a moment. I will delete it now. 13:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I may ask an administrator to delete and re-create the article as the copyright violation is still in the article history. Exxolon (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. You may also write the article. Have fun! Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls-Royce Armoured Car

When adding information to articles please remember add a citation from where you get this information. Thank you SADADS (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

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) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World domination

The article World domination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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 Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

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) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fuhrer Directive No. 30

A tag has been placed on Fuhrer Directive No. 30 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. noq (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from ‎Fuhrer Directive No. 30, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Please do not remove the speedy tags yourself. You add the hangon after the db template not replacing it. An independent reviewer will then decide if it should remain. You have now added some context so I will leave it at that. noq (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam

If that makes best sense for you, go ahead & do it. I have no problem with glossing these terms inline, as long as the Ethiopian title comes first; that's really my only quibble. BTW, what is the practice in other parts of Wikipedia handling native noble titles, say Japan or Byzantine Greece? I looked at the MoS, but there was no explicit statement & I wouldn't trust the judgment of most of the regulars there. (Last time I asked for advice there, the incompetence of the answer almost caused me to leave Wikipedia & the topic was one of the issues that led to an ArbCom case.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

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) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army Brigades

No problem I enjoyed doing them. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

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) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

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) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

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) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

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) 03:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to log in?

Not looking to get you in trouble or anything, but I noticed that someone at IP address 173.67.31.135 has made a large number of edits similar to yours. Would that be you, when you didn't notice that you'd been logged out of Wikipedia? Just nosy -- llywrch (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. By the way, do you think it would be out of line to remove the "resistance group"-related Black Lions material from the Black Lion article and just leave the "animal"-related information? Seems to make sense but a second opinion would be appreciated. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the historian Bahru Zewde considers them a resistance movement (A History of Modern Ethiopia, 2nd ed., p. 168 for example), & I consider him a reliable source for that statement. According to Bahru, their end came due to the Italian Fascist's campaign to exterminate all of the college-educated Ethiopians left in that country. They were never a numerous group -- their total number is 150-200 people -- & the loss of these intellectuals (who included far more people than the members of the Black Lions) led to what is often called "the missing generation" in Ethiopia's political & intellectual history. Ethiopia would have been a far different country had they not been liquidated. -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Hello there! Just wanted to remind you to spellcheck before submitting your edits, such as on Battle of Maychew. Thanks for your great work! -- GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

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) 04:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ken O'Keefe

A tag has been placed on Ken O'Keefe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do what you must. I saw a link with no article attached to it and thought I would provide a minimal article. The subject is alive and my only goal was to put something together that was neither pro- nor con- ... just some basic facts (as supported by what is available).Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mkpumphrey. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nancy ^talk 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted everything.Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

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) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

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) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

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) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

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) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain and Palestine

Hello, I removed the "Bahrain" section that you added to Bombing of Palestine in World War II. Bahrain is not part of Palestine it is not even close to it. Not sure if there is good place for this section elsewhere, but it doesn't belong in this article. Odedee (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Nordwind

Moin Mkpumphrey,

as you worked heavily on the English article, you may like to borrow on the German one, which I heavily upgraded. best regardsAntisyntagmatarchos (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Iyasu_V_of_Ethiopia#Article_name

Hi, as one of the two main contributors to this article, I think your opinion on its name would be particularly valuable. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed away

He passed away on July 25, 2010 according to this [3], which also confirms his Wikipedia involvement. Sorry for the loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.126.102 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary is now archived here. Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gustav Richter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gustav Richter, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Richter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]