Jump to content

User talk:TomStar81/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

FYI

Hey Tom, if you ever have to do something like this again, you may find it easier to use the hidden {{anchor}} template. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012


thanks for your massage

I appreciated reciving your massage. well, I'm Korean and I just only added to Korean language page in English page. (I made by translate to Korean language page from Japanese language page.) But i'm very pleased your massage. Sorry for about my bad english conversation skill and again thank you so much. Pjs239 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nahel argama MS carrier (gundam).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Nahel argama MS carrier (gundam).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nahel argama MS carrier (gundam).jpg

⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Nahel argama MS carrier (gundam).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle (May 2012 Edition) (formally titled: GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive)

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Your RFA proposal

Greetings to you, Jc37. I am TomStar81, a semi-retired editor and former coordinator for the military history project. In my milhist capacity I've been one of the people most responsible for ensure that the Military history Project leads by example rather than following what others have done, and after a basic review of your proposal I think that you and I may have collectively found the solution to the rfa issue here on Wikipedia. If I understand your proposal at the village pump correctly, you looking to uncouple rfa editor rights to better help distinguish between the content rights and the police rights such as it were.

In my proposal I foresee the need for such an event as well, but I've taken a route that suggests a total unbundling of all user rights and having editors apply for the rights one at a time so as to allow editors who wish to obtain additional editing rights to select from the current editing rights those they feel they will have a use for rather than receive a collection of additional editing rights that they may or may not have a use for in their entirety.

It appears that we are both in an agreement about unbundling the user rights, so I am righting to ask if you have had the chance to read my proposal yet, and if so to determine if you would be interested in working on a merging of our two ideas into one proposal. If we can convince the greater Wikipedia community that our idea can work then we may able to take our merged proposal and get others to rally around it, which in turn could provide enough of a push to get us to a point were we could realistically emerge with a new rfa process. If on the other hand you would rather strike out on your own I will offer you my best wishes and hope that your proposal gains support.

Yours sincerely and respectfully, TomStar81 (Talk) 12:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and nice to meet you : )
I actually don't believe I had read over your proposal yet. But I now have, and as I understand it, part of your proposal is to remove open community discussion (the RfX process), and replace it with a particular group of individuals.
I've commented about this elsewhere, but I'm uncomfortable with any closed group doing the selecting, in particular in relation to the tools and responsibilities which have what would seem to be a greater potential for disruption, such as block/protect/delete.
I realise that this is rarely the intent when proposing (and which is part of why it is repeatedly proposed), but to me, they just have the potential to likely end up being examples of a smoke-filled room or creating a star chamber of sorts.
Another issue is that I disagree that all tools should be separate. Many of the admin tools are designed to work interdependently, and are pretty much only "separate" because it was convenient for the devs to program them that way.
All that said, I ask (plead, beg) that you please continue to work at trying to come up with ways to help deal with what at times has been a rather dark "tone" or "climate" to the RfX process. I think most everyone would like to see that changed, whether if only for wikiquette reasons, or wanting (hoping) for more editors to be willing to request adminship.
I'm sorry if I have disappointed you. As I am sure you can imagine, I sincerely wish you well : ) - jc37 16:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the above statement: I've commented about this elsewhere, but I'm uncomfortable with any closed group doing the selecting, in particular in relation to the tools and responsibilities which have what would seem to be a greater potential for disruption, such as block/protect/delete. I am actually adamantly opposed to a closed group doing the selecting for candidates, which is why my proposal is intended to let everyone self nominate, the only closed portion would be the closing part, which is where a selected group would be responsible for closing the nomination. Essentially, this borrows from the milhist A-class review process, which allows everyone to nominate for the A-class rank, but reserves the closing and promoting process to our currently elected coordinator tranche.
As for the rest of you comments:: Don't worry, as they say "nothing ventured, nothing gained". In the long run I know that what will end up happening is that the rfa reform process will die, not for lack of input, but because stubborn pride will prevent people from merging ideas and concepts together into a workable solution. As it is, what most of us have is pebbles, and while we have something tangible to present our proposals will not go far. I am hoping that enough of us will merge the pebbles we have to form a stone or a better yet a boulder, and when that happens there should finally be enough momentum to overcome newton's first law of motion by appealing at least by proxy to everyone's desire for reform by incorporating elements of all of the proposed reforms in one proposal, even if the incorporated elements are not necessarily as prominent as those backing the individual elements would like them to be. Good luck on your proposal. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. You may wish to expand/clarify that section of your proposal to reflect that, in case others besides me might be confused : )
I've spent a lot of time clarifying things, myself.
And you're right - right now while not all are, from what I have been reading - too much is just people talking past each other.
I've been in these discussions for literally years, and my proposal is based upon what I've been learning through them.
Also, speaking of the RfX process, The WMF just posted their decision concerning adminship tools here.
Anyway, I wish you well, as well : ) - jc37 03:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

AfD

Not sure if you really had to bring that to AfD? They obviously won't be deleted; I would have thought a proper merge discussion could have been made on WT:Milhist? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see these, as well :-)
I don't know if you thought about this option, but rather than go to the dramatic level of an AFD, you could try reopening the the merge discussion and tagging it as an RFC next time - it's not a perfect solution, but it can bring in four or five outside viewpoints that you wouldn't have had otherwise. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough - I had wondered about quite what the sudden burst of speed was for ;-). Andrew Gray (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Re: Pressurized Water Reactor

Hi! Sorry I am not the creator of this animation. It was created by U.S.NRC and the original source is here. I've corrected it on the nomination page. Thank you! --Sandycx (Talk) 01:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Kentucky and Illinois

Hey Tom, I thought I'd let you know I handled the Kentucky GAN, so the topic should be mostly safe for now. I've also started overhauling Illinois, mostly updating things and using better refs where possible. Hopefully we can avoid the FAR this time around. Of course you should take the lead on getting the article through ACR and FAC (since I'll still be filling up the queue with my German battleships, and I don't want to steal your thunder ;), but I'll be happy to help out where I can. Best of luck with your internet situation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M4 Sherman Tank Cutaway
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:M4A4 cutaway.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Hello, apparently you protected the page for a month after some IPs kept adding synthesis in it. However, isn't that a little too long? Wouldn't around two weeks be enough? Or maybe a range-block? I'm not saying that the protection should be shorted, I was just wondering why the protection period is relatively long, as there are plenty of good-faith and constructive IP edits on the page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Madoka again

Hello. It's been almost a week since you semi-protected Puella Magi Madoka Magica, and since then there hasn't been any messages left at the talk page. Perhaps the protection itself is was a strong enough signal for the IP. Can we try unprotection for a few days? If he comes back and does the same thing, then we can try semi-protection again. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, but I note that I reserve the 'right' (such as it were) to reprotect the page if our isp editor returns. Until then, the page be unlocked for all to edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Congratulations

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2012 – September 2013

In recognition of your election as a co-ordinator of the Military history project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Thank you for standing again and I hope it will be a fruitful year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

October 2012

Hello, I'm Moe Epsilon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to University of Texas at El Paso because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Regards, — Moe ε 03:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. :p Regards, — Moe ε 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōshi (2nd nomination)

Hi TomStar81. Would just like to inform you that there's this AfD nomination which has been running since October 17, which is already more than two weeks. Since there already appears to be a clear consensus, may you please close the discussion? It's already overdue. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. Good news: you're up next for a free JSTOR account, since you signed up Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@wikimedia.org) with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so ASAP or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. We're waiting to deliver access to everyone until we have the 100 recipients collected, so the sooner you reply the quicker everyone can start using JSTOR.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Another gentle *poke*. Just a last few people and everyone can start getting access. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

USS Iowa, etc

Hello Tom:
My apologies, you posted to my talkpage a while ago and I never replied. Thanks for the FYI: I see what you mean about the bunching problem. I usually use a small screen, so it wasn’t obvious.
It isn't a disaster, but doesn’t look that good, and moving the bathtub image to the right only makes it worse. Part of the problem is the length of the infobox; do you think it’s feasible to shorten it? An image that is wide rather than long, for example; saying "9x16in guns", instead of "9x16in(406mm)50 cal Mark 7 guns" and so forth, so they only occupy one line instead of two; or moving the text from the bathtub image into the paragraph.
What do you think? Is it worth raising it on the talk page? Or let sleeping dogs lie? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Tom! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Hello

Hi, thanks for the message. Happy new year. JAK0723 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Hague and other things

Tom,

That is is what I have asked for. If you check his his talk page you'll see I left a message asking for cooperation. He deleted. A sign of his intentions I think. He has done the same thing with the sources at the Rotterdam Blitz - deleting an entire introduction (sourced). This guy has only been editing since the 20 December, and he's done nothing but cause trouble since he got here. He is pushing a point of view at KG 54 as well. Dapi89 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you may want to read his edit summaries on that page too (Rotterdam Blitz). He's busy trying to make the article look like a war crime, it wasn't. I'll add a bias/pov tag. Thanks for the revert of the Battle of the Hague BTW. Dapi89 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Tom, I have reverted his edits on Kampfgeschwader 54. He has no interest in the article, other than adding non-neutral language to the section relating to the bombing of Rotterdam. Note: he has been doing the same with another established user (see history). Dapi89 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
He seems awfully knowledgeable for somebody with 1000 edits or less.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Slander, all you want. The fact of the matter is very simple. In the case of the Bombing of Rotterdam, I'm not at all bend on 'making it look like' (talking about POV ... ) a war crime. Just as the Allies knew at Nuremberg, the line between war and crime can be very thin and I couldn't care less if anything is termed a war crime, as long as the information in an article is correct and not one-sided. What I'm bend on, is accurate retelling of history. If you had your way, the bombing of the city would be described as a 'decisive German victory', an unintentional mistake and a justified consequence of war. I consider presenting that view, which - again - is not even the German view (at least not the contempory German view), to be falsification of history. If that's something that upsets you, if that's something incompatible with your worldview ... you shouldn't be involved with history. Kleinsma80 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why have you deleted an entire sourced introduction, and persisted with a line that Rotterdam was destroyed? Destroyed means what it says - destroyed utterly.
Secondly, IT IS the view of air historians. E.R Hooton for one, among them Overy and others. The raid was an intent to end the fighting. Dutch made peace feelers before raid. Germans try to stop raid. Partially successful. First wave still dropped bombs. Centre of Rotterdam devestated does not = Rotterdam "destroyed". It is untrue. What can't you understand about that?
Hence yet another revert on KG 54 [1]. He is continuing to edit war there.
Thirdly, IT WAS A MILITARY OPERATION. They have INFOBOXES. Infoboxes NEED RESULTS. The bombing effectively ENDED THE BATTLE. Is this not decisive? In any case your OPINIONS (note you havn't added ANY SOURCES) are irrelvent. I could drown you in sources over this if you like. But I think you have proven sources are not a barrier to your editing warring. Dapi89 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As you seem to have found yourself to be the impartial administrator on the conduct of Dapi89 and Kleinsma80's behaviour over a number of different articles. Please have a look at Battle of Berlin (air). Both the edit history and this section on the talk page. A comment by you might help the discussion in that section to progress and a consensus to be found. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Phillip, neither myself or Kleinsma80 need your intervention. Tom has already been directed to that page, as you know. I know things are not going your way there at the moment, but if you're thinking of trying to add to present difficulties, please don't. Besides, consensus has already begun, is underway, and things are constructive and pleasant enough. Dapi89 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1FPdJ_c2U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.171.237 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

WP:WAWARDS

Still waiting to hear from you at WP:WAWARDS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Aye there, 'TomStar81', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Drive proposal for June

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [2]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Your ideas for what to do about Rotterdam Blitz

Hello TomStar81. Please see

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205#User:Kleinsma80 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Warned)

which you closed with a warning to Kleinsma80. It seems that you also closed the requested move at Talk:Rotterdam Blitz#Move to Bombing of Rotterdam as Not Moved on 17 January in part due to the behavior of Kleinsma80. Since the issue is stalled via a complaint about your closure at Wikipedia:Move review#Rotterdam Blitz, perhaps you could comment in the move review and give your opinion on how to close it. The original move discussion at first glance seemed to favor the move. Can you say whether you would now find consensus for the move, would allow a new move discussion, or propose any other idea for what to do. If I were counting up the original move opinions, I would most likely close it as moved, assuming that the edit war issue is no longer germane. The comment at Talk:German bombing of Rotterdam/Archive 1#The title of this article is incorrect suggests that 'Blitz' refers to rapid movement of motorized troops and tanks, and that 'Rotterdam Blitz' is obsolete terminology left over from usage by the UK press early in the war. My actual motivation is to get that move review closed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at User talk:EdJohnston#Re:Rotterdam Blitz. I could perhaps close the move review by authorizing a new move discussion. But I am hoping to avoid starting the new move discussion since I suspect it might languish just as long. (Old moves tend to become moldy and neglected). Would you go along with my performing the move and then authorizing anyone unhappy with the result to propose a move back? EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Happy Memorial Day!


ZappaOMati is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TomStar81/Archive_14&oldid=1242053147"