User talk:Eurocopter

Eurocopter (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• Letter of resignation as Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject

Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are welcome! It's also a pleasure for me to help new users.

Archives

March 2007 - April 2007 May 2007 - June 2007 July 2007 - August 2007 September 2007 - October 2007 November 2007 - December 2007 January 2008 - March 2008 April 2008 - August 2008 September 2008 - December 2008 January 2009 - February 2009 March 2009 - August 2009

Hi I've just assessed your DYK on the 2009 Serbian Air Force MiG-29 crash. By my reckoning it is about 200 characters short of the threshold for passing articles. If you can pad it ever so slightly and get back to me I can pass it.  Francium12  22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just passed it  Francium12  11:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've realized there may be an issue with the scoring system, and I have a solution, which I've explained here. Feedback is requested. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Serbian Air Force MiG-29 crash, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that vandalism rv on my userpage - I'm playing whack-a-mole with that editor at the moment :P EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Montenegrin Air Force at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fighter Wing 71, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/September_2009. My fault for posting in the wrong place, sorry Eurocopter. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I just scanned the above, and at first glance thought it said "I can easily continue to out-perform any coordinator..." That may actually have been more accurate. EyeSerene^talk 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I know this is in the wrong place; please remove before voting goes live![reply]
      • Eurocopter, would you please take more care in future with creating articles? Fighter Wing 71, which you've just created, duplicates Jagdgeschwader 71 and is the only English named Luftwaffe wing. Would you please mind fixing this situation? Buckshot06(prof) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eurocopter,

I recently found that the article on the leopard 2 Tank only had an infobox declaring that it was a Polish Armoured Vehicle, which seems rather silly to me, so I added the Post Cold-War Armoured Vehicle infobox so I was wondering if there was a West German Armoured Vehicle InfoBox, so I could add that is well.

-Cheers! Atomlog3 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is semi-protected, do you have a suggestion on a single, reputable, widely accessible, source we could use to update all the aircraft numbers, so they're consistent? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your suggestion, I have no access to Air Forces Intelligence, and I'm not convinced of its value, to be honest. How about good old honest MilBal figures updated once a year? Buckshot06(prof) 10:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IISS Military Balance. It's pretty much the go-to reference in the English-speaking world; covers all countries. Buckshot06(prof) 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides continuing the activities undergone in the past four terms, for the next term I'm planning to organize and administrate the Henry Allingham contest (if this becomes a successful contest it would be a major achievement for me). What gives me happiness is the excellent collaboration with other exceptional users in the service of the project, as well as in mainspace. Perhaps what irritated me a bit was that it seemed, since the last elections, that few users candidated only to gain the coordinator hat, without further being active as coordinators. For the new team I would recommend a better organization with each of us having a previously assigned responsibility. Currently there are no assigned duties for each individual coordinator, so everyone just makes what they want and what they think it's necessary inside the project (this results in having a few very inactive departments). Thank you for your questions and concern. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rsponse. I second your suggestion that coordinators are delegated responsibilities on which at least part of the time must be spent. Keep up the good work. All the best for re-election. AshLin (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to what you did (it looks okay, even if it still is way outside the pale of WP:MOS and will give someone a headache to copyedit), but my main objection was and is to stuff like adding unretrievable citations (faux citations, if you will), to using the page like a sandbox (at some point, it was half in Romanian!, not to mention the bad, often ridiculous English - such as translating Eforie as Euphoria), and to structuring the content into the highly redundant "life" and "chronology" format. All in all, the article will have to be redone either way, if it is to move anywhere but down. And translating it from the Ro version, which is almost exactly as problematic, is simply not the way to go. I have the sources, I just need the time and energy to approach that big a subject, and I would not object to a concentrated and judicious effort from any other editor that would not reek of hodgepodge amateurism. Dahn (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credeam că este destul dacă există referinţe la pagina despre Titu Maiorescu, eu am tradus de la wiki.ro şi nu mă pricep prea bine să citez sursa pentru articol. Mă poţi ajuta, te rog? Luiza1202 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You've voted twice for Tom :) You may wish to edit it yourself  Roger Davies ^talk 08:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, personally it doesn't fuss me too much as I was the first to support it, but just a reminder that under the new rules this ACR should've remained open for 5 days, not 3 'n' a bit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated many of your comments into the article Cologne War, and although it is probably not as heavily cited as you would prefer, I think it is closer to your model. Would you take another look, and see if this meets your approval? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. I'm not sure if you have seen, but I posted a comment here regarding prospective awards for the World War I contest, and I was wondering if you would like to comment? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. On another WWI Contest note, I have just noticed that there is inconsistency in how many points one is awarded on their submissions page and the main contest page. For example, on the submissions page the points for a Featured Sound or Picture is 35 points, while on the main page it is 40. This needs to be fixed up. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. It seems that EyeSerene is willing and able to make the barnstars and awards also, so that should hopefully be done soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. In a bit of a last-ditch effort to see if I could generate some more editors to the contest before it starts, I went and spammed all the task force talk pages with the same notice that you had BrownBot send out to all Milhist editors, so hopefully a few more prople will join! I must say, also, that you have done an excellent job in putting the whole contest together, so thanks, your efforts are much appreciated! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. Good idea on the postponement. I just integrated Sturmvogel's points for reviewing idea into the contest then, placing a section in the "Scoring" table awarding a generic 2 points for a substantial review of a GAN, ACR or FAC. I will now go and add this to each of the submissions pages, but feel free to tweak/correct as necessary! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we should actually drop the "substantial" altogether. I originally added it in there as Sturmvogel suggested it should be, basicly, a thorough/decent review, but now it is probably a little confusing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce, don't know if your last comment was partially in response to my message here... While you and I would probably agree on what "substantial" means, it will be subjective so I'm in favour of dropping it no matter what. I've also floated the idea of awarding of somewhat lower points for ACR/FAC comments, while treating GAR as automatically/objectively "substantial" and keeping as 2 points because it's generally a one-person job and involves a fair bit of effort when you consider all the steps involved. As long as "substantial" goes I'm not too fussed about differentiating points, just that I think we usually get a decent number of reviewers at ACR/FAC, but GARs we need to encourage any way we can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was partially due to your comment, but I think in general it best not be used as, for example, who is to say if someone supports an article they have not given it a "substantial review"? I do somewhat agree with you about the points differentiation, but I do also think it is just simplier and easier to have them lumped together, and it is not devaluing one over the other. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. A few comments have poped up on the World War I Contest talk page you might like to weigh in at. Most noticably, the number of points awarded for a DYK and ITN here, and awarding points for reviewing peer reviews here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. I just noticed then that you awarded User:Redmarkviolinist points for reviewing the articles Frederick Scherger and Dennis Gorski, however neither had anything to do with the First World War. I, and I think a few others, assumed that points would only be awarded for reviewing an article if it were in the scope of the First World War. Is this not the case, then, or was this just an oversight? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice! I've even left a notice on his submission talk page but completely forgot about it. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that; it just got me a little confused! Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. I see you have just gone and done a Redmarkviolinist, so to speak, lol. Frederick Scherger, of which you just completed a Good article review of, is not under the scope of the World War I Task force, and is the same article Redmarkviolinist listed as reviewed for A-Class. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I figured the quick turnaround there was because you might have been looking at it for the Aviation contest (my head spins a little from all the competitions, guess I'm not the only one). However, fear not, you can always do the Hippolyte De La Rue GAN, since he definitely qualifies for WWI... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) ("call me opportunistic, I don't care!")[reply]

God, it seems like I don't know anymore on what world I'm living on... In the past two weeks my wiki-time got so limited that I barely managed to take care of the contest. When I've noticed that familiar article on the GAN list I was convinced that it's part of our scope and didn't pay enough attention when reading it. Actually I was so tired and rushed last evening that I did not even notice that the men served in the military starting with 1921. Thanks guys for noticing me and if you see me making such stupid mistakes from now on feel free to revert me! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think nothing of it, mate - you've been the driving force behind this contest and your efforts both kicking it off and maintaining it are much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. There had been no edits made to the article since the end of September, and the review was transcluded to the article talk page. The review was open for a full week... However, if you would like to nominate the article again for GAN, after having taken care of the issues, I will re-review it right away, so that it doesn't have to sit through the waiting period again. I keep a pretty close eye on the GAN page, so I should see it when it comes up, or just drop a note on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter, I will give the idea serious thought. Thanks for the personal appeal. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have written to the Library of Congress and blogged the gratitude.[1] Cheers, Durova³⁶⁰ 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ConcordeCDG.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ConcordeCDG.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:ConcordeCDG.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EurocopterDauphin.jpg is now available as Commons:File:EurocopterDauphin.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing 737 landing.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Boeing 737 landing.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiG-21 LanceR C.JPG is now available as Commons:File:MiG-21 LanceR C.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.roaf.ro/en/wallpaper_en.php. As a copyright violation, File:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

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

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:IAR 330 SOCAT.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Socat6.jpg, which you've sourced to www.roaf.ro. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "That's very simple Dc, Croitoru might be indeed a good economist but has zero managerial experience, which is vital for a PM. In the best case he would have been appropiate for the Ministry of Finance, but he was proposed for the PM position just because he's Basescu's puppet. Regarding the second part of your message, I think you misunderstood me (probably because I forgot the inverted commas when I described PD a strong promoter of liberalism and their flat tax measure as liberal). What are you suggesting now, that I'm marxist? Then, open your eyes and read above that I expressed my support for authentic liberalism. Again, let's stop here and not make Biru's talk page a place for our political debate. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)"

1) Why are you calling Dahn brainwashed regarding the current political situation in Romania? You see that he has the grasp of more things than his interlocutors, don't you? In the absurd case, you could blame him of being a brainwasher, never brainwashed. Give him credit at least that his opinions and conclusions are certainly his own. 2) Are you sure you can discern the matter without having some personal involvement? It is a well-known fact that people rarely vote differently in the same family, that people with similar social situation have similar political views. You definitively must be somehow, indirectly or indirectly connected to the military, hence you or someone you know stands to loose a pension privilege or maybe even the job if the economic plans agreed with the IMF are pushed forward. Can you say for certain that your political opinions are intellectual and not based on personal experience/implications? It is a known fact that the army voted more for Geoana. 3) I have not suggested you are a Marxist. Either you misunderstood, or I expressed myself insufficiently clear. But you voted and support here in discussions a Marxist: Mircea Geoana (see his economic plans). I do "blame" you for supporting a Marxist. 4) There was no choice between 2 evils (btw, you never even said you chose between 2 evils; for all i know you might consider Geaona a good), there was a good, positive plan and a good, positive team to take Romania out of economic and political crisis, and there was a bad, negative plan and bad, negative gang to push Romania back into Iliescu's era with the added bonus of economic oligarchs in the true Russian style. It was a classical battle between good and evil, and good won. I am sorry you made a mistake this time, it happens, and I hope you would not repeat it next time. Basescu is but a small champion of the good. Constantinescu was also a positive champion in 1996, but it turned out he had no team capable of running the country. Basescu has. There is one very positive thing that came out of this 3-years long anti-Basescu campaign: good people dare more to get involved these days. 5) I compared Croitoru with Sachs and Krugman, and I do stand by that comparison. Sachs had no managerial experience when he was first given a job, and he performed it brilliantly. Krugman has been named puppet by many idiots on tv. You have to realize that some people are exceptional, and you/we have no right to treat them with the same level as everybody: you/we don't ask of a managerial experience as a job prerequest from a Sachs, you/we don't ask for a favorable media when hiring a Krugman, you/we just shut our mouths up in front of such people, you/we just thank God they agree to get involved. Think about it. It is absolutely unjust and very disrespectful what you said about Croitoru. He is not your more or less average Basescu, Constantinescu or Geoana. OK? You don't ask a renouned scientist to adhere to a certain economic philosophy you have (even a "correct" one); you change your understanding of economic thought based on what top scientists tell you. Science is above politics. Dc76\^talk 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken into consideration. But I'm not going to start the discussion again especially when it's started by one of Dahn's militants. I know there is always somebody keeping your side. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean? Are you accusing me of something? Are you calling me a Dahn's militant? Do you deny me the right to have my own opinions? Do you deny the existence of extensive but civilized content disputes I had with him? For what reason do you bring up the ArbCom case? I have never discussed you with anybody, if that's what you wonder. Or do you simply want to throw some mud at me since this seems to be the fashion these days? I would appreciate your clarifications. Dc76\^talk 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, probably I've overreacted and I apologise. But at the moment trust me I have many, many other better things to spend my wiki-time on, rather than discuss Romanian politics which is full of rubbish (not to say shit, which is quite gross for an encyclopedia). So yes, I respect and took into consideration your opinions, but sincerely I don't want to continue such a discussion. All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw from the WWI taskforce contest, but still keep working in this area and keep my page there active as a record of what I do between now and the end of February (and even beyond). My page is here, but hasn't been updated since I created it. Would it be simplest to mark me as withdrawn, and let me just keep adding things to my submissions page as I do them? i.e. Keep contributing to the content drive, but withdraw from the competitive aspects of it - kind of like a non-competing participant - is that possible? Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created yourself your submission page I hadn't have it watchlisted until now and was unaware of your submissions. I'm terribly sorry and apologise if this changed somehow your contest performance. As I looked over your submission page, you seem to be at the moment just 1 point behind the last competitor which qualifies for the second round (and he hasn't been very active recently). So if you want to continue, go ahead, create an article and catch him up (you still have more than three days to do this). I will award you the points for your submissions first thing after arriving home from my holiday. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy to stay in the contest, but I suppose it does rather depends on how I end up doing after round one. :-) I've done a bit more now and will be doing some more over the next few hours. As I said, I'll be carrying on regardless of what happens in the contest, but it will be interesting to see what the results of round one are. I'll try not to shove things through at the last minute... Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I did slip two more in at the last minute, but that's it now from me. I'm excited to see the work being done on other memorial articles (Beaumont-Hamel Memorial is GA and Vimy Memorial is A-class). Am off to see if anyone wants to talk about this on the memorials taskforce page). Thanks for all your work on this contest! Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• James Whiteside McCay has been promoted to A-class. Shouldn't that score? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for noticing me! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Think my create/improve score is 125, not 119, with flow-on to total... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice as well and please apologise my mistakes. I have to finish everything during this night as tommorow morning i'm leaving again on holiday till saturday. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. I just have a quick query regarding the points for Walter Peeler going from A to FA for the World War I Contest. You awarded the article 18 points for this elevation in status, yet according to the point scoring table this is worth 25 points, so I was just wondering why the discrepency? Anyway, I hope you had a good holliday and a happy New Year. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought your rational would be. ;-) However, I figured that when a new round started everything, basically, started afresh. So, from my understanding, I would have been credited with raising Walter Peeler from Stub to A during the first round and been awarded 27 points, but in the new round this would be, basically, irrelevant and I would have been credited with raising the article from A to FA, and thus awarded 25 points, much similar to how it works in the monthly contest. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can understand this system and as long as it is consistent with everyone than I have no specific complaints about it. I do, however, think this may be a little more difficult to track in some cases in comparision to the other. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident in your abilities, so it should be all fine. ;-) I did notice a slight mistake, however ... you awarded me 7 points for a DYK on the scoreboard! Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry for the "inconvenience". :)) --Eurocopter (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think I should be able to have a crack at it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eurocopter. I just thought I would let you know that I went to review the above today, only to find that someone else had started a review of the article a few days ago, just they didn't note they were reviewing the article on the GAN page. Oh, well. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, I have returned to Wikipedia to contribute to what I see is now a major Cold War history "project." I last participated in the Cold War history topic in 2006, and just today updated my user page.

I've had to take the time out in order to write and publish a trilogy of relevant books: Nuclear Insights: The Cold War Legacy. available on Amazon.com, all derived from a four-handed collaboration for Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry.

With that done, I have some time to contribute, and see considerable progress and organization. Your activities as a project coordinator seem most relevant, so I'd like to get your advice on what and how to go about it.

According to my records, my editing was limited to the topics "Cold War" and "Nuclear Weapons."

From a brief review, I see now that I could also contribute to "Nuclear Proliferation," which apparently needs help. In addition, the "Legacy" subtitle under "Cold War" would fit well with the focus of my latest books.

It is also evident that there there is a steep learning curve for conformity with format.

--Alex DeVolpi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfox1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick questions:

• I have a DYK approved and waiting in the queue to go on the Main Page tomorrow. The article was written on 30 December and nominated before the end of the last round (sorry, I forgot the last round ended before 30 December) but not approved until a few days ago. I was waiting for it to go up before adding it to my submissions page (I hadn't realised it took so long for DYK now, but the process does look most efficient). I got the article creation points this round, and I assume the DYK is this round as well. What happens with future DYKs nominated towards the end of this round?
  • In this case the DYK counts for the current round. If you nominate a DYK during the current round and seems that it will be promoted during the next round you decide whether the points awarded will count for the current or the respective next round (but you have to decide of course before the end of the ending round). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first round, you assessed one of the articles I created as B-class and added the checklist, but it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. See here.
  • Fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• About the same article, if I try and get that to the standards for a featured list, would there be a level-up number of points, or a straight 40 points, and would the promotion have to be before the end of this round (rather than just the nomination being in this round)?
  • Besides the points awarded for the article improvement, you'll get another 40 points for promoting a FL. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a B-Class checklist entry on my submissions page that seems to be getting missed with each update. I intend to add more B-list checklist entries there, and it is "only" 0.1 at the moment, so not urgent, but was wondering if that was just being missed, or there was a problem there?
  • I'm not going to edit the section each time you submit one or two assessments or B-class checklists for just 0.1 or 0.2 points. I'll wait for more to be submitted and if you don't submit anymore be sure you'll get the points at the end of the round. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still working on Stone of Remembrance, to make it more start than stub. When I've finished, shall I submit it to that place you or someone mentioned earlier for re-assessment, or is that only for B-class or higher assessments? If I think a stub can be bumped up to start, is it easier just to ask you, and shall I add a note in future if I add something to the submissions page that I am still working on?
  • Feel free to simply announce me and I'll assess it.
• Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any questions are welcome! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the answers. I do have one quick question, about scope again. I recently created a very small stub at For Services Rendered. As I'm not sure whether that is in scope, I didn't submit it. However, my questions about scope aren't getting much response. See here and here. Are there better places to ask these questions, or should I be more specific? I will ask at the WWI task force talk page section explicitly about For Services Rendered, but was hoping for a response to the general question as well. My feeling is that the articles are more about culture and cultural history, than about military history, but others may think there should be some room in the scope to include these. Certainly the First World War poets and their poetry, I would have thought, but then where do you draw the line? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry for cluttering my submissions page with notes - thanks for moving them to the talk page! Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Regarding scope questions mentioned above, the best place for adressing them is the main project talk page. Although I could say my opinions if certain articles are within our scope or not, I don't believe they should be decisive. Raise a thread on the project talk page and I would probably comment there. Cheers --Eurocopter (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it might depend on whether people active in the project feel able to assess the articles... :-) I was a bit ambitious with The Muse in Arms. That is definitely more literary than military. But I enjoyed doing that, so I don't really mind what the verdict is. I have started a talk page thread (I linked it above), but as I said, no-one has replied there yet. I'll go and add this one there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter, I'd like to semi-protect this page, given the number of times I keep having to revert vandalism, removal of references, etc etc, mostly from anon IPs - take a look at the edit history. But just wanted to run it past a coordinator first. What do you think? Best wishes for the New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Of course, go ahead and semi-protect it, especially as it is a quite delicate topic. We should track such articles more rigorously as disruption in equipment and current inventory numbers is common (besides Iran, see Georgia, Syria, etc). --Eurocopter (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning your closure since it looks good, but why did you close Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Petlyakov Pe-8 but not do any of the other promotion steps? We are now cross-listing with Aviation so it ought to be fine for MILHIST coords to close their reviews that are cross-listed to us. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to leave unexpectedly yesterday evening just when I was starting to close the ACR. Took care of it now. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed the merger of the Romanian military history task force into the Balkan military history task force. As you were listed as a coordinator of the Romanian task force, I've transferred your coordinatorship over; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that came as a surprise, Eurocopter. I hope you don't mind me correcting you though - the discussion (now archived here) wasn't on the coords talk page. It was on the main milhist talk page for three months (from October 2009 until a few days ago) and was announced in the milhist newsletter. I closed it down about week ago for lack of further activity. However, if you think the merger is wrong, maybe that should be discussed further at WT:MILHIST? EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kirill made the same point you've made, that Romania isn't in the Balkans. I assume everyone else who commented felt that Romania comes under the wider definition of "Balkans", even if it's not in the actual geographical Balkan peninsular. Whether that's correct or not I don't know, but it was the consensus view. I think Tom might be looking at further task force reorganisation fairly soon though, so if you think the Balkan task force could now do with a more accurate name that might be a good time to mention it (and if you can't access the discussion, I'll try to remember to mention it on your behalf). EyeSerene^talk 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. The GAN reviewer of Horses in World War I contacted me recently asking if I was still interesed in reviewing the article as they are preoccupied with issues in their RL. However, I am also a little busy now, trying to organise everything for my first year at university, so don't think I could properly review the article, and was wondering if you would be interested in doing so yourself? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter! Would the above be anything that you would have an interest in? If not, I'm going to ping some other people who may be interested in reviewing, but wanted to give you first dibs. Either way is good, I'd just like to get the review under way again! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much time you have to look at these two articles I stumbled across:

• The monument aux morts of the Western Somme
• The monument aux morts of the Eastern Somme

I would have normally assessed them, but I think they need a closer look than that (they might have been copied from somewhere else). If you would prefer a note about this to be put on the task force talk page, I'll do that. Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I just read the latest MilHist newsletter, and was half-expecting to see the results of phase two of the WWI contest listed there (given that the results of phase 1 appeared in the December 2009 issue). Is the plan to have the results of phase 2 listed in the March issue, alongside the results of phase 3 (i.e. the overall results)? Speaking of which, I see I need to get a move on with more submissions for phase 3! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. Looks like the contest is finished now! :-( I failed to achieve my personal aim, which was to bring a large number of the articles I started or assessed to B-class (though I did get a few up there), but I've really enjoyed the contest and am going to continue working on a range of WWI articles to get them to B-class (at least). I also noticed the glittery objects in your sandbox, and I was wondering if as well as those you were going to make a list of articles that reached a certain class-level during the contest, or were created during the contest, as part of a summary of the contest? If you weren't planning to make such a list or table, would it be OK if I did something along those lines? Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, and thanks for the reply to the above note, and thanks for the work in running the contest![reply]

Hi there Eurocopter! I was directed to the World War I Task Force from WP:FEEDBACK pertaining about User:Buggie111/Battle of the Argesul. Since you identify yourself from Romania, I'd like some suggestions on building the article. I have one ref which describes it a bit more in detail, but I still have not added info from it. So once gain, TIA.

Buggie111 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a seperate note, I'm thinking about nominating your for adminship, though I have not plowed through your contribs. Also, I don't know if it's a bit wierd to no,minate an editor who has more experience than you.

Toodaloo,

Buggie111 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check your sandbox - I've left a rough design there that you should be able to modify (the colours and fonts may need work!) Hope this helps. If you'd rather have a different layout, let me know. EyeSerene^talk 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice! I think I have decided to wait for the next election to run (if I run at all). I feel like I still need to get more involved within the WP. So that if I run I will feel certain that my time and talents can best be used to help the best WP on Wikipedia. Thanks SO much and Have A Great Day! :) Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Eurocopter, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I did some more stats on the WWI contest. I posted here, then wrote this page and then posted this. It gives a slightly different picture to the stats you presented (in particular, the figure of 65 existing articles improved when compared with the figure of 238 article improvement level ups - both figures are right, they are just saying different things by measuring in different ways). I do think the extra detail is useful - what do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we were going to re-word the citation to include his term as coordinator, weren't we??? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it -MBK₀₀₄ 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you during the next six months. – Joe N 14:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. I see you are "are actively involved" with the Romanian Land Forces article. I couldn't help notice there is no record of the army's role in the revolution. I'd be interested to learn more about this and maybe add to the article, your thoughts? Ryan4314 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, excuse me for my late response, I was quite inactive on wiki during the recent period. The most important issue here on wiki regarding Romanian military history is the lack of reliable English sources and low level of interest besides Western historiography. The best thing I could do is to start adding information based on press articles - but that wouldn't be very professional for an encyclopedia. Briefly, starting with the evening of the 21st December the army switched sides and joined the protesters; afterwards, until 22nd evening there where intense fightings between protesters and army on one side and Securitate together with other loyalist forces on the other side. What is most important is that out of 1.150 victims of the revolution, about 940 died in confrontations between army and securitate after Ceausescu was overthrown and the new regime seized power. All the best --Eurocopter (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since I first asked this question I have done some research on the Armata during the revolution. I thoroughly recommend the book "The Romanian Revolution of December 1989" by Peter Siani-Davies, a heavily cited book by an englishman. I'd like to write a very neutral, general paragraph and hoped you could give me some feedback on it please. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd be happy to do that. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be my pleasure - I'll do it tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I hope I haven't changed the meaning of anything or put words into your mouth - if so, please accept my apologies and feel free to rv as necessary. Hopefully au revoir and not adieu, EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I'm honoured to be asked to help out :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]