User talk:Narson/Archive 4

Alan Hart is one of the most knowledgable Britons on the subject of the Middle East, he's reported from and around there for 40 years, specialising in talking to the people involved (including Dayan, though that's not where he gets the claim that Dayan threatened to sink the USS Liberty.

I've added this, which is a careful and balanced republishing of his highly relevant views. I trust you won't simply revert again.

Alan Hart, reporting for ITN in Israel at the time of the Six-Day War writes that Israeli planes directed fire-control radar at the Liberty at about 2200 on the Wednesday night, the 7th. It was a warning - since an hour or so earlier, the U.S. Defense Attache in Tel Aviv had messaged the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington. "By telegramme in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast."^[1] Hart writes that either "the messages were inadvertently misrouted and delayed" or another possible explanation is that someone deliberately held up the message, believing it to be an act of surrender to Dayan. wrong clip deleted Stephen Green is a third source (highly regarded, 26 times more cited than Cristol) claiming that Israel decided to attack "Sometime in the late afternoon or early evening of June 7, probably just after the routine "move" order was given, the NSA learned, from an intelligence report emanating from the Office of the US Defense Attache in Tel Aviv, that Israel was planning to attack the Liberty if her course was not changed." ^[2] (All this on top of Assistant Secretary for Defense John Stenbit telling Harvard University in 2003 that the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours).^[3]

PR^talk 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The publishers lack of any reputation is still a bit of a worry there PR. They have no reputation for fact checking or anything else and I don't think such an unknown quanitity is a good source for such a controversial subject, especially when we have just had a paragraph saying the exact same thing. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not denying that Alan Hart is a highly knowledgable and trusted commentator. Nor that Stephen Green is highly knowledgable (with none of the serious doubts that swirl around Cristol, for instance). The worth of the information stands or falls by the expertise of the author, not where it's published. (Book and his web-site, see above). With this level of evidence for Israel having threatened to sink the ship, a proper discussion belongs in the article. PR^talk 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a paragraph on the claims just before it. Why do we need two? I still remain unconvinced on using material some would consider coming from, at the very least, an incredibly negative (As as much as Alan Hart doesn't appear to be pro-US but he is incredibly anti-Israeli) source as fact, when we have other sources saying much the same (As demonstrated by the previous paragraph) --Narson ~ Talk • 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On Stephen Green....I am assuming we are talking fundementalist protestant Stephen Green? Much ridiculed by all? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Hart was there. He's a very trusted individual - he credibly claims that ITN was going to broadcast his 40-second voice piece predicting the attack on Egypt 4 hours before it happened, the only one of 100s of foreign correspondents to be in the know. (This life-time scoop was squeezed out by the crash of two civilian airliners, one in France and one in the UK). Hart's account of Dayan pushing Eshkol aside and seizing the Defence Ministry (a political coup being preferable to a military one) lends depth and background to this knock-down claim that Israel threatened to attack the USS Liberty at around 9.00pm (local time, I think) the evening before it was done. (Of course, this threat by Dayan also makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable but well accepted fact the Liberty was ordered to move away from Israel).

Stephen Green's book "Taking Sides" 1984 is also clearly much better considered than Cristol's "The Liberty Incident". And not just by the "Amazon Reviews" (there are 3, all giving it 5 stars) but by the much more authoritative Google Scholar, giving it a really respectable 26 citations. By comparison, Cristols 2002 book (the one we treat as the only authoritative resource on the subject) gets just 1 citation. The question for you is now becoming - what, other than POV, is stopping us using the real Reliable Sources and writing a good article to them? PR^talk 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to help with the dispute regarding the USS Liberty incident. If you are interested in participating, please add your signature accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I've been partly off-wiki due to revision anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. My apologies for the slow response: I decided to take a short wiki-break in an effort to get rid completely of an infection in time for the holidays (says loads about my priorities, huh?). Anyhow, my first love around here is Milhist and I have no intention of letting ArbCom take over my life! Happy holidays! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bug that's bringing all sorts of secondary infections. Whisky in strong hot tea is very effective: it's doesn't actually get rid of it but it'll soon stop you caring :) Get well soon! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me understand the situation at Scuderia Ferrari, Narson. What I just can't seem to get is what to do until there is a GT page? What to do until Enzo's GT efforts are added? Any ideas? Timoleon (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Narson, and I'm still a bonehead! You said 'Just add it to the scuderia ferrari page under a new section;' Add what? Timoleon (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And there isn't any Scuderia Ferrari GT info to add which brings us full circle I think. Timoleon (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has been suggested many times. I don't know if I'm stubborn or stupid, but I still don't get it... Suppose no one writes about Enzo's GT efforts for the foreseeable future; what is to be done until then? Timoleon (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't seem like a 'disambiguation' issue, but an issue analogus to my General Motors hypothetical. I know I must be missing something; I usually am. And my lack of understanding stuff almost always gets me in trouble. Still, what is the problem with letting the reader know that Scuderia Ferrari was deeply involved in GT racing; that the article entitled 'Scuderia Ferrari' is in fact NOT about Scuderia Ferrari, but ONLY their F1 efforts? Timoleon (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't often meet folks with the patience you showed me regarding the Scuderia Ferrari article Narson; I am appreciative and a little humbled. I hope you like the solution DH85.. came up with as I do. You, in particular, made my first real foray into Wikipedia editing an enlightening and engaging experience. I had heard horror stories about tyrannical cabals controlling Wikipedia articles, and you have shone them to be false. Thank you for giving me another reason to like people! Timoleon (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For your interest Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3. Majorly talk 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the IP editor's addition of the wreck of HMS Victory as unsourced and location unknown. The whole article is "unsourced" in that it is impossible to tell which info has been taken from the book source quoted and which is from elsewhere. I've readded the info on HMS Victory and referenced it. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Has nobody told you? We cockneys don't sleep, how did you think Britain conquered the world in the 18th and 19th centuries? Then we have ONE lousy nap in 1914, wake up after 30 years of good sleep and find you brummie bastards have messed everything up. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever the armed forces say our navy was screwed from the 1890s (or at least it was easily possible to predict we would be screwed). Anyway, I'm off to my uni library to hand back some books on Denning and whatnot; talk later. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Narson, that seems reasonable. I guess a neutral pov can help! Sarah777 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What I stated several times, is that the IHRC final report would not be the most neutral source for this highly controversial article due to certain reasons. I never said not to use it because it is made by ethnic Jews, nor I want to make Antonescu blameless for his mistakes during his leadership. All I want to do, and I stated this several times, is to create an accurate and neutral image of his political and military career (fact confirmed by my edits made today to the article). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my last edit merely added tags to Eurocopter's version. Though I honestly believe that the problem his edits pose should either way surface on top of any other incident. Dahn (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Thank you for your input, and I look forward to any further comments you may have on the matter. Dahn (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Narson, please excuse my so belated response due to some pressing engagements. If you believe I could be of any help to your contribution in Wikinews, I am prepared to give it a try. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

On Friday, y'mean? Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How long did it take you to notice the edit on Falkland Wars? Are you spending hours on PC everyday just to find out who edited pages?--hnnvansier (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is great to have someone else who shares my same belief (that we don't need the C-Class), but It seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment. This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i noticed you voted against adoption of c class, with the comment 'Unnecessary and creates more work with zero benefit to the reader'. I don't know if you have seen the comments that it is generally propsed to adopt C class with an automatic assessment based upon the B checklist. This means there would be virtually no work in implementing the class, everything would be automatic. As to zero benefit, I would draw your attention to the article statistics. There are currently 20,000 mil hist articles which fail the ref check point, 10,000 failing coverage, 5,000 structure, 5000 support, 1000 grammar. So there are 10,000 assessed as at least B class coverage but otherwise failing. For most people these articles are perfectly useful sources of information and ought to be recognised as such. There is a benefit to readers, those who are interested, to know what we think of the general quality of content in the article they are currently using. There are 10,000 articles in this currently non-category, compared to only 3500 marked B, and 1000 in the higher grades. Inevitably more people are relying upon those currently lumped together as start grade articles than any other category, thus getting no help from us as to whether we think the article they are reading has decent content, or not. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Narson. The emphasise you are using has always been used as extra info to remind people who the person is on about. No WP article ever uses them. Chubbennaitor 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Use '''bold''' then. It's confusing when the media use it as what I've explained. Chubbennaitor 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything you write is for 15+. You proposed to make the article look less colourful and appealing. I don't mean to be coming across strongly ut you've hit on an article I watch like a guardian. Chubbennaitor 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopaedia here. If you want something for children go to the Simple English Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that no child will know it exists unless they have an over viewed knowledge of wikipedia. Chubbennaitor 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By. i've just had enough. Chubbennaitor 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I can satisfactorily fulfill the community's expectations of me as a coordinator. – Joe N 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good advice - I tend to get caught up in the emotion of the moment. Regards Sarah777 (talk)

On Saturday... Majorly talk 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You've expressed interest in Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5; I'm just coming to give you the details and a reminder. We will be meeting on 4 April at The Manchester & County near Picadilly train station at around 1:00pm (although some will be turning up an hour early). There will be a Wikimedia sign to identify us, I believe. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've arrived at the conclusion he is probably a wind up merchant. I'm not going near the guy anymore but could you remind him that its not acceptable to re-arrange comments on a talk page out of context. (As he has done). I'd point it out but he would on past record use it as an excuse for more comments. Justin talk 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since yesterday it was impossible, I propose an edit today about the Tireless issue in the History of Gibraltar article, dealing with the complaint made to the European Court of Justice. What do you think about it? Best regards. Cremallera (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Pfainuk. There is a discussion at the Gib talk page regarding mention of the death of the Polish Government in exile leader in the "History of Gibraltar" section. Your opinion would be appreciated. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed this one was addressed to me as well(!) :)

For big letters there is a <big> tag that you can use, to go with the small tag. Coupled with bold it can make things quite noticeable. Pfainuk talk 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm sure Narson wouldn't go so far as to actually do this, as it is against WP talk page etiquette to use excessive markup. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to influence your comment in any way shape or form (I couldn't if I tried anyway) but I would be interested in your opinion on Talk:British Empire#British rule. Regards, Justin talk 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Pfainuk and Narson the referees between Red Hat v Gibnews-and-his-rottweiler-Justin, or something?!  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Narson. A while back, you left a message on my talkpage, letting me know that there was an ongoing AN/I thread on Antonescu. I did not log in for a week, missed it entirely, and could not locate it in the AN/I archives. Can you please direct me to it, or let me know what happened? Dahn (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed yet, you may want to nowiki that ref tag in your latest comment at WT:F1, it's preventing the rest of the comment and your sig from showing. :) Apterygial 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have done it for you, but it would have meant recreating your signature, and, well, I couldn't be bothered... Apterygial 12:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am writing currently a serious reaction, why this hurry? Before that, I was inviting GHcool repeatedly to the talkpage (history shows). GHcool pushing me into a hurried 3RR-thing is bad habit, and AbadF. Then, you talking to GHcool saying "kosher" is too intimate to judge unsided. Please withhold, and let go. May I now finish my reply, or does it not matter anyway? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TOLD you I was editing. And an editconflict afterwards? I asked for patience. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sectiontitle inserted) -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my talk. A wikipedia-session spoiled. -23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Being curious: how did you find this future 3RR? -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By popular request, I have started a discussion in the article's talk page. Please join if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue on the article's Talk page, Universities_and_antisemitism#Recent_Edit_Warring. Although, in point of fact, it is actually the responsibility of those who initiate reverts to explain their rationale on the Talk page. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at This as you are cited as an involved party, the editor taking it there should have informed you but has omitted doing so. --Gibnews (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Narson,

I am a bit worried about Justin. Take a look at the last three sections in his talk page and in mine. A wikibreak will probably do him good. But maybe you can talk to him, lift his moral and tell him to not bother and just enjoy the discussion... (with less aggresiveness, I hope...) I am afraid that if I talk to him again (which he has forbidden me to do, but even if he hadn't) I will only make him angrier. (maybe even my question about the rottweiler angered him... I don't know...)

BTW, (as I said in the WQ discussion, out of sheer idiomatic curiosity) what did that "brush and tar, hey ho" expression mean? (just trying to learn more English, I swear ;))

Thank you very much. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-incidence? Regards, Justin talk 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) 20:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at ANI, don't see how I could block one and not the other. Short block intended to make the pair of them realise that edit warring is not the way to do things, seeing as there was no discussion on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that the discussion was at the 2010 season article. Bit of a strange venue to discuss the 2009 season. As I stated at ANI, I'm amenable to an unblock request, but none has been made yet. I'm signing off after this so will check back tomorrow morning to see what has happened overnight. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're completely right. I tend to use the tick when the edition is minor in terms of size. I'll try to amend. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash I gave up drinking in June. Justin talk 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well alcohol and PTSD don't tend to make good bed fellows, thought I'd quit before it became a problem. You've noticed the tag teaming then? Justin talk 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic , the previous RFC got cluttered with tendentious argument. Justin talk 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwback to the '90s, bad shit really. I don't have a problem with you editing it, anyway I'm going to take your advice and try and get some sleep. Justin talk 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson, I'm planning to move the discussion to a new section, providing a summary of my statement, just to get rid of the large amount of unproductive messages. Would it be OK for you? --Ecemaml (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a pretty good idea. May I leave you in charge of resuming the discussion whenever you like? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I'll stick to the compromise, even considering Justin attitude. However, I'll go on working Gibraltar-related articles in my nursery. Best regards and Merry Christmas --Ecemaml (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started rewriting and citing (God forbid) on this article, care to bail in and help me out? Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family too! Apcbg (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson, I owe you some words with regard to one of my comments in one of the countless talk pages of the Gibraltar articles. It's this one, referring to Gibnews' "mates". Obviously I wasn't referring to you and therefore I'd like to apologize if it sounded as I was including you among them. I personally appreciate the possibility of, from a deep disagreement, talking to you and exchaning points of view without indulging in personal quarrels that go nowhere. Of course that I wouldn't say the same of other individuals involved in this discussion. This moratorium has been extremely illustrative (and I must say, not surprising at all) in order to verify how it is possible to take advantage of such moratorium to promote someone's views (taking advantage of the impossibility of answering; at least Justin had the partial decency of removing part of the editions done when the rest of us had compromized not to go on with the escalation); going on with controversial editions (I still remember some mockery on me with regard to the use of {{POV}}) or how legitimate (even if naive or ill-informed) editions may be removed without any reason. Speaking frankly, I understand clearly why these articles goes nowhere. For sure I know that you don't support such king of behaviour, but I'd like to have seen some comment on it.

On the other hand, and switching to the real issue, I don't agree with some of your summaries. How would you like to proceed? Would you like me to add my ony summary or directly edit on yours or talk about them in here?

Best regards and happy new year :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Justin talk 15:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Were we accused of sock puppetry and investigated? Justin talk 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Was he one of the sock on the USS Liberty before I abandoned the page to preserve my sanity? I'd be amazed if they did a checkuser on that flimsy pretext. Justin talk 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't remember the guy but I obviously upset him. Wonder what it was that I did? Justin talk 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Personally, if you try to keep a stance as sort of "mediator" (something that I thank a lot) an equal treatment to all parties would be helpful. Otherwise, it doesn't help. Best regards and happy new year --Ecemaml (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I assume you might be referring to this ("you have months to decide anything because of the tendentious arguments, continuously repeating the same argument and not listening to the other side. Using a talk page properly will achieve much better results.") I didn't see any comment on this. I can recognize that sometime several of my editions might be considered inappropriate, and I don't see a warning from your side as hostile. On the contrary. But for it to work, it must work in both ways. Best regards

You're right, as usual. Apologies for raising your blood pressure, I shouldn't let myself react to a rise. I'm going to back off and leave those articles alone for a few days. Justin talk 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I laughed at your Big Bang Theory reference. Quite amusing. :) Rockfang (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A deletion review that you may have an interest in: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 8#File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg. Justin talk 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a movie title, but it isn't (so far).

Could you take a look here and see whether you can make some comment to Justin? I am sure you have many reasons to criticise me (you don't need to explain, I have heard enough since I entered in the Gib articles ;-) ), but maybe they are fewer than Justin's. Most important, maybe you can try to make his attitude more open to edits from people like me (and help clearing the deadlock in Gib-related articles). Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am currently working on the "Swedish Project" and "Award and Prizes"'s article Nobel Prize. Since it is a top importance article and not even GA class I am trying to make it a GA article and perhaps further after that. However, I'm in a state now where I could use some help. I need a new pair (several pairs in fact) of eyes to look at the article and the talk page for improving prose, debation of different things and some sourcing. Do you got any possibility to help out? BR --Esuzu 12:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Seeing as no one thought to invite you, I hesitated before inviting you as I'm aware you were tired of the tendentious arguments. I think I'm just about to give it up as well, I can't believe that an admin would edit war to do exactly what the disruptive editors actually want. Justin talk 12:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to end the madness, I've made a proposal that I think covers things, take look at the talk page and see what you think. --Gibnews (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the comments of Red hat.

In the case of the poll, I asked for a vote and one line only with no comments in order to prevent disruption. I removed his comments and asked him on the user page to vote again as it seems he is not actually voting for the proposition and saying he agrees with something different that was not included. This was done very politely.

see the diff here

its a very different thing to simply removing someone's talk page content. --Gibnews (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Narson,

I don't want to edit war (neither with you nor anybody else). I appreciate very much you level-headed approach to the Gib articles. But I don't understand your reason for avoiding the mention to San Roque in the article (and I want to understand, thus my comment in your page and the following honest questions):

• Do you realise that San Roque has many more mentions in History of Gibraltar secondary sources than many other events in the History section?
• Do you have an encyclopedic argument to avoid mentioning San Roque but keep those other events in the History section?
• Or is it that (of course a respectable option) you want to avoid that some editors are in disagreement with the article (currently, Justin)?

Thank you very much. I have an honest interest in your reasons (I hope my questions don't sound too loaded, I've rewritten them a couple of times in order to avoid that). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. Still, I have doubts about some of them (I don't want to disturb you, if I start to get boring, tell me).

• The encyclopedic reasons to avoid the mention and keep other events: Who says what is noteworthy or not? If this is the History section in a Gibraltar article, the usual answer would be "mentions in History of Gibraltar secondary sources". What else do you have in mind?
• Regarding "peace on Talk:Gibraltar" ;) : please, think whether Justin's complaints are more, less or equally valuable as other editors'.

Thank you again. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Off to bed and was just about to say goodnight when I spotted your message. The sad thing about trying to take in the wikipedian message of assuming good faith, rather than my personal preference of simply twatting fuckwits straight off, is that you fall repeatedly for wind up merchants being utter knobheads. Seems also that some half-decent editors also fall for their ego being stroked as well, so much so that vsnity blinds them from the blindingly bleeding obvious.

So goodnight, I shall retire for a few days and come back refreshed for the long haul. When I quit, and I did quit, I was surprised by the number of emails I got thanking me for standing up to the POV pushers. Fare thee well, and if I embarrassed you by faint praise in my farewell message, then good because I meant every word of it. Good night young man. Justin talk 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson,

Ecemaml seems bent on outing Gibnews, trouble is based on what he has told me he has the wrong end of the stick. I've tried to reason with him but its falling on deaf ears. Sadly I can just see this freight train heading into the buffers at arbcom at top speed. Justin talk 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. However, per the Medieval Miasma theory of disease, "Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter (miasmata) that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell." What we have at the Gibraltar page is a lot of miasma and foul smells. We need the bad airs exchanges for good airs - it has stunk there for too long. Incidentally, you often portray yourself as a mediator, but you have contributed to matters by giving Justin positive feedback that his behaviour is OK, that he is the way he is and everyone else should change their behaviours to accommodate his tempers. Perhaps you let your online friendship with Justin cloud your judgement. Anyway, looking over my contributions, although some carry a sharp edge, I'm perfectly happy for them to be scrutinised. Especially if the worst crime I committed was removing a paragraph on some Polish general and removing links to his personal site which had been agreed on three boards that it was not a reliable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to post the following response in the Arbcom page, but thought that maybe we were getting too long about one specific issue. So I will tell you here and maybe we can either agree without disturbing that page, or disagree and then let's let each one's positions be explained there (which I think they already are, more or less). My comment was going to be:

I don't remember any party saying that UN is NPOV. At the most, the parties in this dispute have said from the beginning in August that the UN has a very notable POV, isn't it? Look at this comment of mine from August: 'I am not saying that the article should state "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory" either, but "the UN ..."' Red Hat also said in August 'Please let's not confuse neutral and notable.'"

I hope you'll agree that TRHoPF, Richard Keatinge, Ecemaml, Cremallera and myself were only trying to make sure that all notable (at least the ones that seemed notable in our opinion) POVs from reliable sources were there: UK House of Commons, UN, Chief Minister, the most relevant History of Gibraltar books... None of those parties in the dispute has even pushed for any Spanish Ministry's or Spanish newspaper's POV to be included. (No matter what our individual POVs, which as I said do not strike me as Spanish nationalist POVs).

Finally, that MEGV that you mention doesn't even seem to exist now as a user... So I am always talking about the parties in the dispute, who are in fact the ones with the largest (too much in my case!!) edit history in the Gibraltar talk page. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No intention of any further reverts, AN/I would have been the next step. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am writing to you a more detailed comment than at ArbCom because it seemed to me that you were offended by my comment, and therefore I owed you some further explanation than my reply there (I wouldn't want to bore other uninvolved people there, I hope this doen't bore you).

• In the first place, I want to make clear that I don't think that defending a Pro-Gib POV is wrong. It is perfectly fine: from what I've seen here in WP, it's not editors who have to be NPOV, but articles; and that is the result of editors combining their opinions and having some reference for what is verifiable and notable in secondary sources (I know that you know that even better than I do, but I felt I had to put some context to my comment).

• If I say that you've defended edits more according to a pro-Gib POV than not, it's not because I assume that because you are British that's what you'll do (in fact, if you look at my comments to any British involved editor, they are all the same: I never assume anything from them, including Richard Keatinge, you, Red Hat...). I've said that because I've read your comments and your edits and you seem to factually defend more edits along one line than the other (which, as I've said, is perfectly fine with me!!) I don't say that they were driven by a particular POV or nationalism, I just say that they have happened like that.

• Please also notice that I've said that you are one of the most neutral editors because, looking at your comments and edits you seem to accept more neutral edits (e.g. accepting that the UN position was notable enough to be in the lead along the "self-governing declaration", while all other editors said that it was not).

• Finally, you have critisised many editors due to their behaviour (and probably rightly so many of the times). But those editors seemed to mostly be on one "side" of the dispute. In fact, you have never critisised Justin's much more abusive attitude (at most, you have told Justin to get some sleep or calm down, not that what he was doing was wrong). I don't say that it was intentioned. I guess that we are all humans: we like some people and dislike others, and those affections unconsciously drive our behaviour. I am probably also like that, too.

Don't you think you can be one of the editors that can help keep the neutrality of the Gib article from editors defending a more "Spanish POV", even if Justin and Gibnews are absent from that article? That was the main point of my comment (responding to EyeSerene concerns).

Sorry for my long comment, but I haven't been able to cut it shorter (I hope that my worry that you completely understand my previous reply is enough excuse for its length). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) BTW, if I have worried to learn English language is -among other things- because I like the culture: I have many friends there, I admire the Anglo-Saxon practical way of dealing with complicated problems (political, social, mechanical...), the distrust of unbalanced authority, the sense humour... So do not think that I've an anti-British bias; it's much more like the opposite...

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) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Plese, Narson, help us... I was about to give a very angry response to Justin, but I changed it in the last moment (hopefully it's not too bad). If this goes on, Justin and I (and probably some more) are going to make each other bitterer and bitterer until...

Pretty soon (three months in the worst case is nothing, really) we are going to be working together in the Gibraltar article, so we'd better get along. Myself, I got the message about the 3RR, now I only want to stop this confrontation. Can you intermediate between Justin and me (like you did with the 3RR)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand what I did was a silly thing indeed. Well, I really hope you are right and we all get over this. Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed the subpage User:Narson/Thingmen in 'Category:Anglo-Norse England' and realized that you would be a great addition to the new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. We really hope you will join us in improving articles about the period. Sadads (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor didn't make the POV edit, he simply reverted it twice but I take your point about editors with grudges. Justin talk 23:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd wondered why it had been so long since I'd heard from you. I know sometimes it seems like the world of wiki revolves around personalities but it helps to remember all the great folks that you meet here as well. This Texan misses you! Come on back.Tirronan (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason for the name change, I've got tired of the infantile morons on wikipedia tittering like little girls and also I've had a problem with harassment off-wiki. Please could you avoid use of my real name. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. No action has been suggested against you. Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chill OK, it doesn't matter. Wee Curry Monster talk

If you disagree concentrate on working on trying to find a lasting remedy, better yes? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a principle: Namely collective stupidity. You cannot constantly condone incorrect behaviour and then be surprised when it occurs, yet the admin do. Arbcom even does (though Arbcom is, I am sure, an april fools joke of Jimbo's that has just gone too far and he feels too guilty to own up to) - to the point of being a running joke to the community. They want us to take them seriously? Then they need to either A) Take their roles seriously and put genuine thought into 'rulings' rather than trotting out simplistic drivel, or B) Leave it to people who will. A sitation where Ironholds would be an overwhelming improvement to the adminning quality indicates how far it is sinking. He is starting to look like the bloody messiah to me right now. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mood stabilising drugs are immensely helpful! Wee Curry Monster talk 10:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Take care young whipper snapper. Don't get too disillusioned. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I love you too, honeybunch. See you Thursday. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds is semi-local wikipedian I know. He thinks he is funny. He is not. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Young whippersnapper, , suggest you strike through the last sentence. As an aside, struggled through the weather to hear a cracking local band last night. So today I am quite mellow and plan to keep things that way. Take care, young man. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a response on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a warning about discussion participation at Talk:Gibraltar#Discussion Warning. This is to ensure you have been explicitly notified. This note does not indicate any wrongdoing on your part. I am sending it to all talk page participants with the past 72 hours.

As a recent participant, I explicitly invite you to join in the discussion that I have started at Talk:Gibraltar#Refocus. Discussions on the talk page are going around in old circles. I am trying to help break that pattern and get the discussion focused. I look forward to your contributions in helping improve the article. --Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Gibraltar#Proposed process

I make a proposal for a process and conditions to move forward. You are invited to share your thoughts and participate in the discussion. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Narson, I wish you Merry Christmass, and good health and every success in the New Year! Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Hi , I've seen you removed an edit describing launching missile attacks on sderot and ashkelon areas with white phosphorus. do you belive this isn't related to the subject (as this types of attack should fall under the chemical weapons use)</ref>.

if the problem with the grammer could you refined that paragarph (as reading your edits you have much better language then I do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.101.250 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you refine that edit ? as I understand the problem is with the second part of the edit "but no reports had been about the use of chemical warheads in Grad Class rockets or the use of biological warhades" - I don't know how to cite that (the absence of white phosporus in Grad rockets launched). I did find a refernce that stated that during 2006 the IDF didn't find a missile with chemical or bioligcal warhead as a responce for al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades statements for the launch. (btw there should be a un paper on the subject http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=251864 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.101.250 (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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) 09:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)