User talk:RobDuch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1896 West Point Ordnance & Gunnery Textbook[edit]

@Qwirkle: Here. Includes the unsuccessful Gordon carriage, which I may add to the article, and the short-lived 5-inch and 7-inch siege guns. Free online. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the Gordon shows up under the maker, Morgan, also in some sources. It’s an interesting example of the Goldilocks Principle. The Gordon was just a little too simplistic, the Brit DCs a little too bleeding edge. The Buffington-Crozier was just in the right spot in between...at least until hydropneumatics got better, and aircraft (literally and figuratively) took off. A bunch of the Sp-Am war scare temporary emplacements were for the siege guns...more emplacements than guns, IMS, but that’s why God gave us the railroad. Qwirkle (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Wonder if anybody will get ticked that I'm mass-deleting basically irrelevant Further Reading from CAC regiment articles? It's stuff that another editor put in all his articles and I just copied the refs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Nahh. I don’t think there’s a Cult of Further Readers to balance out the Bookspam Bashers Brotherhood. Qwirkle (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Gloucester: 3 forts, 11 names. Even Roberts lumps them all under "Fort Gloucester". Should have it straight tomorrow. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Some clown will come along and claim it’s “original research”... Qwirkle (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I cut through it as best I could. Reduced the number of names bc some were alt versions only appearing unsourced at Stage Fort Park, which I updated. Now presenting Stage Fort. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Now looking at Fort at Salisbury Point and Fort Nichols (Massachusetts). Could've been the same location, but there are 3 candidates. Leaning towards the one recommended as Fort Nichols by Ktr101, which a USGS map shows is named Salisbury Point, and is also in Amesbury vice Salisbury, which some sources indicate was Fort Nichols' town. It's right where Rte. 95 crosses the Merrimack. Other candidates in my thinking are Coffin Point, directly opposite downtown Newburyport, and of course the actual mouth of the river on or opposite Plum Island. The CDSG article has nothing on the CW fort beyond crediting Major C.E. Blunt with its design. Unusually, Roberts also has nothing beyond a little on Fort Nichols, and FortWiki has nothing at all. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Just found List of United States War Department Forms, with Hathitrust and other links to all those 1890-1920 tech manuals. Linked a bunch of ordnance there and will link more tomorrow with luck. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Internet Archive[edit]

@Qwirkle: If you regularly look at the Village Pump I'm sure you've seen this, but it's definitely a concern for those of us who value accessible online books with expired copyrights. Behind this discussion is a lawsuit against Internet Archive by 5 publishers, including 3 big ones. They're accusing the archive of copyvio. I really hope this doesn't extend to the pre-1924 (or is it 1928?) pubs we enjoy, or to US Gov't pubs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think that authors gotta eat, too, and that IA has been playing Robin Hood just a bit too much here. On the other hand, I’ve been noticing that Goo-Goo Books is now preferentially displaying new reprints with minor changes...i.e. copywrite stuff, although I doubt some of it would stand up to a court challenge. Either way, though, Dover books is in trouble... Qwirkle (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Little known Jane's fact[edit]

@Qwirkle:: I've been resisting the temptation to add to the current Army sourcing dispute that Jane's Fighting Ships was originally compiled as a wargaming database, and early editions had an appendix with the rules for "Jane's Naval War Game". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Fort Sill has taken down CAJ/AAJ/etc. They have the current issue of ADAJ, and the file structure seems to support more, but that's all I could find. HathiTrust only allows viewing of CAJ pre-1924 due to "copyright restrictions". Argh! On the bright side, Archive.org has them, but for how long? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the archive.org stuff is from copies that have been then destroyed or archived without easy access. (IMS, “washed” is the term for it, but M might not S. It often don’t these days.) In that case, they’ve a solid case for keeping a circulating electronic copy for each vanished work, and there’s no need to tighten up access beyond that. Of course, they might do a Googlesque panic, and do a kneejerk pull on everything after ‘24. Hope not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Re template[edit]

Rename old complete template MAMilhist, or something like that, edit out the current stuff? Qwirkle (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you have already done that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Working on it, got to do Maine also, but there are few active installations in Maine with articles. I got a response on the talk page that the inactive navbox is "much, much too big". May do a forts-only navbox, and he suggested a list article. Looks like a forts/mil res/maybe camps navbox plus a listicle. And many additions to Category:Military facilities in Massachusetts. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: With no response from the other guy yet, will implement Maine and work on the Mass listicle. Category question: Mass currently has a sparse "Category:Military installations in Massachusetts" and a fat "Category:Military facilities in Massachusetts". I'm planning to initially just put everything that isn't already in one of these into the "facilities" category bc it's already well-populated; I can always request a cat merge if I really want one. Other suggestions? And I'm planning to link the Nike sites to List of Nike missile sites and group them IAW that article, bc it has a little info on most of them. My reconstructed "former" template for Mass is at User:RobDuch/sandbox/template if you want to look at it. Listicle is mostly done except those pesky references at User:RobDuch/sandbox/list. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Maine is implemented, not looking forward to Mass. Nike sites done. Started reffing the Mass listicle. (later) Current installations, forts, and Nike sites all reffed. Once Mass is done I may mass-create stubs for the current Maine inst navbox; amazingly, I've found refs for all of them. I also got WP:BOLD with the latest name for Natick Labs. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The otherwise indefatigable author of tons of Mass military stubs somehow missed all the current armories. I found a source. OMG. In going over the numerous camps I've taken the liberty of redirecting a number of stubs to collocated facilities. I've taken some of these redirects off the list but left others on it, can't make up my mind. @Qwirkle: I'm leaning towards categorizing the redirects (my latest idea is to move the redirects to "Inst of the US Army in Mass" etc where appropriate) but leaving them off the list and the navbox, what do you think? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I dunno. I strongly suspect this is something you are a lot more experienced with than I am.

My only strong feelings on lists is that I wish there were less of them, and better ability to search by keyword categories. Given that wiki doesn’t really have that, the lists are quite valuable, but I think the broader the category, the more unwieldy they get. For instance, many former military facilities in New England precede the US, as do a fair number of military units. Do they go in, too? Qwirkle (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed a number of mergers due to stubby articles, an obvious merge target, and lack of independent notability. Thinking that redirects don't generally belong in the navbox. I was working on a forts/MR/camps navbox, may not put the camps in there. The list is mainly to replace lost navbox functionality. I'm not bothering with the armories for now, and I'm keeping referenced redirects on the list so far. Surprisingly, very few Mass military articles are pre-1775, not that I've been looking. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've discovered a now-inactive user who actually tag-bombed himself extensively, as well as others. Took a while to figure that out. For better or worse, "Rings of Supersonic Steel" came in the mail. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone I might have run into? I remember there were a few who set up sockpuppets to attack themselves in a play for sympathy. Qwirkle (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
30 SW, not active since 2014. Liked to do Cold War stuff, seemed to be tagging every info gap he couldn't fill. Analysis for him is a bit unclear, as he apparently incubated in user space and inserted very large edits. He also felt the need to attach extensive quotes to cites, so the reader could immediately see what text his info came from. At the tail end of Fort Heath#Battery Theodore Winthrop, he actually included a comment (that is only visible in "Edit") on a "failed verification" tag that he'd re-analyzed a map of the fort and proved that it was over 300 feet between Gun 1 and Gun 3, instead of the 270 feet stated by the also-obsessive Pgrig. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Heh. You know, I like that. Tells others what needs fixing, tells the reader not to get carried away with a “fact” that might not pan out, do it yourself rather than palm it off on the next guy. Having seen so many wikiteurs who take obvious accurate criticism of “their” articles as a personal affront, that’s kinda refreshing. Qwirkle (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have Butler's The Guns of Boston Harbor? P. 240-241 should have a statement of what the 1938 experimental Navy-MIT fire control system at Fort Heath was, probably radar. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t. It has been a while since I’ve bought any books, come to think of it, outside of friends-of-the-library sales. That’s too new for that. (Now watch some loon show up to “fix” the hyphen...) Qwirkle (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: I've taken the plunge and published List of military installations in Massachusetts and Template:FmrMAForts. I've populated the list to all the existing installations so far, and taken the liberty of changing categories from "Mil Fac" to "Mil Inst". Next will be the past installations. I'm thinking pretty much only the Civil War camps should remain in Mil Fac. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Done with populating List of mil inst in MA, the template, all that stuff to both existing and former mil inst. I'm surprised that the number of stubs changed to redirects by myself and other users in this effort haven't caused ENWP to fall below 6 million articles LOL. Planning to switch gears to Submarines in the United States Navy; much of the groundwork is already laid. However, bringing Allied submarines in the Pacific War up to snuff seems daunting, though I bought Silent Victory with a view to that. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
”Wikipedia: 2 million articles in 6 million places!” Qwirkle (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead with HD Chesapeake Bay since the strawman is in my sandbox (or the scarecrow is in the play area). The general lack of sourcing in articles on the early history of Virginia is disturbing, probably they originated in WP's early years. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review John Neal article?[edit]

Hi, RobDuch! Could I interest you in participating in a peer review of John Neal (writer)? I recently overhauled the whole thing, replacing the article I wrote in 2006 and that you, among others, have helped to slowly improve over the last 14 years. I think the new article is a major improvement and hopefully worth getting the article's status upgraded, but before I request that upgrade, I put out a request for peer review.

I am asking you since you made a helpful edit in 2016 about Neal's gym at Fort Sumner (Maine).

The peer review request is linked at the top of talk:John Neal (writer).

Thanks in advance for the help!

-Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: Despite my being a bit prolific on WP, I'm not well-acquainted with many WP: policies. I'll give your article a read-through in the next couple of days. My immediate impression is that the lead section needs some citations, at least one per paragraph, though I don't know what the WP: policy is. I'm pleased that Neal was one of the few to recognize Poe early on. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@RobDuch: - Your question about citations in the lead is a valid one. Thanks for bringing it up! When I was writing the article, I was operating on something I read about how the lead needs citations only for quotes or information that is not included elsewhere in the article. Looking it up now, I see conflicting information. Wikipedia:Citing sources#When not to cite validates what I just said, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations says I should cite anything that looks challengeable. I think the latter is probably what I should do, which would be easy given my familiarity with the rest of the article. I look forward to hearing any other feedback you might have! -Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dugan Murphy: I've read most of the article. I think overall it's exceptionally well-written and well-organized. I've just made a few edits, mostly linking various items and fixing what I thought were a couple of awkward phrases. There are alternate approaches in those cases where I "fixed" the grammar. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@RobDuch: Wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and making those changes. It is very much appreciated. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020[edit]

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) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fort at Salisbury Point[edit]

@Qwirkle: The CDSG Journal published more info on the elusive subject fort. I've added it to the article, you might want to have a look. Has an official document naming it "Fort at Salisbury Beach", but who am I to put effort into overturning 150 years of error, esp error enshrined in Heitman? I just made a redirect and put the alt name in the article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice. A lot of these things really weren’t consistently formally named, you ask me. I was really impressed by the number of names the works on Alcatraz had; you got different names used by the same people more or less contemporaneously...or maybe you saw descriptives mixed with names, which has about the same effect. Either way, the only real change would be to switch what was the official name in the lead; like you say, there is no point in eliminating usage from authoritative sources. Qwirkle (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Digital Pay State[edit]

Check out the one for Fort Warren Qwirkle (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The glory days of Watertown Arsenal for sure. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s got the vanishingly rare “Pneumatic Gun Carriage and Projectile Company” carriage a few pics down, too, which all but stole some of the B-C design, but missed out on the elliptical recoil path, probably the most important feature.

This thing has got real possibilities...I tried to see if I could find pictures of the actual first US trackless trolley (as opposed to the LA Laurel Canyon cheap imitation), but found instead a bunch of pics of the old “Nancy” aground. My father saw that as a kid. Qwirkle (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the caption I would've thought it was B-C. I see the "10" Mortar" is really a 12" Mortar. Good luck with trolley pix. Noank, CT had the hulk of a large, wrecked sailing ship in the 70s. It was falling apart, looked like a whale carcass being cut up, and was removed in the 80s. Wiscasset, ME had a pair of sailing ships that had been abandoned in place in the early part of the 20th century. Sadly, preservation efforts were limited and they were wrecked by a storm in the 80s, then removed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
On the leftcoast, there’s a great example of that up in Anacortes, WSW of the ferry terminal. Old lumber schooner, IMS, used as a breakwater. It has a tree growing in it.... Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Looked it up, an SO tanker, La Merced, actually. Really overgrown now. Qwirkle (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The vanishingly rare 105 ack-ack

Follow the money...[edit]

While the Driggs ancestry is a confused mess when you look for it as genealogy, from the cold-eyed, grasping viewpoint of the lawyer, it gets more straightforward. Qwirkle (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

L.L. was W.H.'s brother! Thanks for this, should get it in there soon. Also the earlier post-1925 info about Driggs becoming a design agent only. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
L.L. was curiously long-lived if born soon after W.H. In 1930 he would've been circa 80 years old, based on W.H.'s grave at Arlington (wherein the person writing it up for the web misread the middle initial on the tombstone). Of course, he may have been much younger or a half-brother. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
August, 1868....so he was born more or less as his older brother was graduating the Academy. Qwirkle (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Checking on the spelling of “Labadie”, I discovered that the fellow the name came from, LL’s great-grandfather, had 33 children by three wives- two French, and one Chippewa. I had wondered whether the obscure genealogy was because of Métis ancestry, which people then tended to downplay, but he was from the 16 all-French group. Still, on the Labadie side of the family he apparently might have been Pontiac’s distant cousin. Qwirkle (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Re the “taxi fiasco”, it’s pretty amazing just how nasty the taxi wars got. IMS, Hertz (i.e. Yellow Cab) got his stables, with racehorses included, burned down. Before you get feeling too sorry for him, Checker’s Mar... Markin...had look that up...lost his house the same way. Again, IMS, the cab company that Driggs built for was an outgrowth of a speakeasy empire. Dangerous folk, yer nicklechasers. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: If you're heavily into the Philippines forts, here's a new book by a CDSG member. I refer frequently to his previous work, "American Breechloading Mobile Artillery". $49.95 from B&N, or I have the author's email for a signed copy at $45.00. May lead to a lot of changes to the articles I expanded on WP. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. For many, many years, the Belote brothers were pretty much the only unified source in print.

I’d be interested in what new has been dug up on Dewey Brady; IMO he is one of those rare people, like King Albert, whose death actually changed history. Qwirkle (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's been over a year, but I finally put the 1935 Driggs info in the article. It seems "all the king's horses and all the king's men/couldn't get Driggs back in business again". Of course who knows what the next ref will have. I took the liberty of giving myself a B-class; the only thing missing was ref/cite, and the darn thing is refbombed. Should I put cites in the infobox? WP:SHIPS doesn't want them there, but they may be the only ones. It's tragic that it took a while, but I did find info on Dewey Brady. He didn't die until 24 Oct 42, as a POW; his DSC citation assumes he was killed in action. Although he presumably got a bunch of enemy aircraft shot down, it's unclear to me how he changed history. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 19:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I’m reasonably sure he was, in fact KIA, there’s burial reports, multiple eyewitness accounts, and the terrible effects on Denver all attesting to that. If Water Tank Hill had held against the initial assault, it is possible the initial landing might have failed, and the forts may have held out another two-three weeks.

I suspect a good many of those gravestones in Manila are, in fact, cenotaphs. Qwirkle (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe by the time of Ell-Ell’s death, he was the company, and the lack of physical plant was a killer from ‘39 onward. The job shops he would have tried to sub out to were already back in business with other, steadier work. Qwirkle (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Arlington has a big collection of cenotaphs, I think they say "in memory of" or something to distinguish them. There are some for the crew of USS Scorpion from 1968, for example. It's even more tragic that "Mil Hall of Honor" has nothing on Dewey's part in the island's final fall on 5 May, nor does his DSC. The DSC seems to assume he died on 24 April 42, 11 days too early to take part in the final assault. The coincidence of 24 April and 24 October is not lost on me. When researching the war in the Philippines, it occurred to me that, with virtually every survivor on our side having endured over three years as a POW, much history would be lost or garbled. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, he died before landings...but the battery, as an effective unit, pretty much died with him. He and his company clerk ran the thing even more than usual. One of the problems the CAC always had was ossifers who were strong on analytics, but correspondingly weak on leadership and decisionating. IMO, and worth every cent you paid for it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The USN had/has similar problems with nuclear power officers, IMO. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020[edit]

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tank and arty articles[edit]

@Qwirkle: In pursuing random short-term Wikigoals, I've taken a look at several articles on types of AFVs and artillery. The cure for some of them is obvious but time-consuming; add in-line citations, easy to find for those that are mostly a list of Wikilinked items. Those that are a wall of unsourced text with a couple of books at the bottom... ugh. It's obvious why these articles were created in the project's infancy before refs were required. It's less obvious why nobody has stepped up to the plate more recently. Some authors have added sourced material, but have not sourced the previous material. Articles that are in particularly bad shape and are very short include Self-propelled gun and Jagdpanzer. I'm between games right now, that's why I'm Wikignoming now and may go off-Wiki in the near future. These are just observations, I'm not immediately taking up the AFV/arty mantle and I'm not suggesting anybody else do it. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if “self-propelled gun” shouldn’t just get rolled into SP Artillery as a redirect. Same ground is getting covered twice.

Me, I care a lot less about citations, and a lot more about accuracy; a single-footnote article that accurately reflects expert consensus on the subject is far better than one of those chock-full-o-cites pieces whose cites are misunderstood, or wrong, or merely glurge. Qwirkle (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The SPG talk page actually has two proposals for redirect/merge, but they got shot down on the basis that SPG could include SPAA (which is now at Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon), assault guns (also now stand-alone), and SPAT (redirects to tank destroyer). Until 2010 it was mostly a list of related vehicles with WP articles, but in 2010 somebody gutted this for no cites. I think another redirect proposal should be made, I bet we get few replies. Including the articles above in each other's "See also" should be all that's needed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: Added links to See also in the SP articles so the major ones link to each other. I'm thinking that Jagdpanzer and Panzerjäger are candidates for merge to Tank destroyer, would be semi-complicated. No talk page acty since 2011 on either (where the apparent artificiality of the distinction was commented on but not acted on), except what is either a troll or a poorly informed enthusiast on Jagdpanzer in 2014. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: I've proposed redirecting SPG to SPA, not planning much else right now. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination)[edit]

You make a nice argument to keep the article. :) BlueD954 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried. IMO the most valid argument against keeping these is that some are poorly sourced (this was discussed intensively on the MILHIST talk page a couple of months ago). Of course, some are arguing that 1989 is an arbitrary year, etc. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 15:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020[edit]

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)