Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 22 June 2011

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Adalbert Schneider

Hi, I have a question regarding Schneider. According to Jackson, Robert (2002). The Bismarck: Weapons of War. London. ISBN 1-86227-173-9 page 91 (I don't have this book) the article currently states that Schneider was killed by an 8-inch shell from Norfolk. When I read Müllenheim-Rechberg I get the impression that the fatal shot was fired by Rodney. Could you please check your sources on this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Dorniervictoriastation.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dorniervictoriastation.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN

Please respond for your GAN Aldertag soon, or I will be forced to fail it (say, 3 more days?). I've already waited a week. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Galland

Well, to some people that would still count as "service"

But yes, It does mention his alligience to Argentina in the late 40s and 50s so im satisfied.

Flag Order

Well most battles and ectera which ive looked up it also shows the belligerents in order of battle, i.e whoever participated the most is at the top; and personally it looks better and clearer on print - Care to explain?

Here as some examples off the top of my head- and as you can clearly see they ALL have whoever participated the most at the top, and thats how most of wikipedia is if you havent noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_Somme http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_Waterloo http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939%E2%80%931945)

Also, if your going to be that tight up about it; Why havent you put the commanders in alphabetical order?

Alois Lindmayr

I created his stub! I don't have anything else. If you have more info please add it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the article for DYK on behalf of your and my name MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

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 Misplaced Pages"

US / UK/Euro spelling

revert Ip changes, NO US spellings - the Americans had nothing to do with this campaign, the British did.

You should note the IP was correct in regards the spelling change. World War II is the American spelling whereas Second World War is the British and CW spelling. In addition, as far as am aware, the latter term used by Germans etc when directly translated of course. Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, per your comments ill try and free up some time later to reinsert the missing info you cited.

However in regards to American English: Second World War is British ;) Canada, Oz, New Zealand all use the term as do the Germans. The Americans use the term World War II/Two. Granted this variant of English is not always followed in the UK ala the BBC and its World War Two history sections. Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BATTLE OF FRANCE

hELLO, yes I have... but now I am out of my place... the losses were some Fiat CR.42s and some FIAT BR 20s bombers... this the section of the Fiat in wikitaly that I contributed a lot to write... Can You read Italian?

I Falco ebbero il battesimo del fuoco il 13 giugno, quando 23 aerei del 23º Gruppo del 3º Stormo scortarono dieci bombardieri Fiat B.R.20 sul porto di Tolone. Dodici caccia mitragliarono gli aeroporti di Fayence e Hyères, colpendo al suolo circa 50 aerei francesi e distruggendone almeno 20. Il 15 giugno, 67 C.R.42 attaccarono gli aeroporti della Francia meridionale. Ventisette biplani del 150º Gruppo, del 53º Stormo, mitragliarono l'aeroporto di Cuers Pierrefeu incendiando una quindicina di Vought V-156F; sette dei caccia che effettuavano la copertura a 500 m di quota furono intercettati dai Bloch MB 151 dell'AC-3 che abbatterono un C.R.42 e ne costrinsero un altro all'atterraggio. I piloti italiani si attribuirono l'abbattimento di quattro caccia francesi. Altri 25 CR..42 si diressero contro l'aeroporto di Cannet des Maures colpendo al suolo circa venti aerei francesi, alcuni dei quali risultarono distrutti. Altri aerei francesi, però, erano riusciti a decollare e nello scontro con gli italiani risultarono abbattuti un Falco e due caccia francesi, mentre un secondo Falco riuscì a rientrare all'aeroporto benché gravemente danneggiato. Nel frattempo, la caccia francese aveva intercettato i 25 biplani del 18º gruppo in missione di copertura sopra Beuchamp: due CR.42 furono abbattuti. Il 18º Gruppo dichiarò l'abbattimento di tre aerei nemici, mentre l'Armée de l'Air ammise per quella giornata solo due perdite. L'Adjutant Pierre Le Gloan del GC.III/6 sul suo Dewoitine D.520 riuscì nella stessa giornata ad abbattere quattro C.R.42 ed un B.R.20, ottenendo in un sol giorno la qualifica di Asso..

Hello... unfortunately I dont have any information about ground forces... it is not my favourite subject... the only specialistic information about them regards tanks and snipers, mostly on Eastern Front...but I will write down the section of "Battle of France" for the two Italian aircraft involved in the campaigne...

kind regards...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich

I still dont know why they arent in order of who participated the most as if you look in almost every other battle or conflict they always show them in order. Still youve been on here longer than i am, Suit yourself

Goldblooded (talk)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

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

Ernst Lindemann A-Class review

Are you interested in commenting? I would like some feedback on quality of content not just style. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I can't judge your last remarks. It was a comment on the review page here Ernst Lindemann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Britain Day

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Britain Day you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Harrison49 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the article on hold as there are a few things that need fixing. It's very nearly there though. Harrison49 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Britain Day

The article Battle of Britain Day you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Britain Day for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt

That would be great. There's a peer review on at the moment you may like to take a look at but if there's anything you have which can be added in, that would help greatly. My aim is to nominate this for GA in the next few days. Harrison49 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Malta

Well am sorry to disapoint you but the "home team" would be the United Kingdom ... the fact that the people on the island were mostly Maltese is pretty much irrelevent. The island was British, was developed as a British military base and manned primarly by British weapons and forces. The MILHIST guide to infoboxes states that nations should be in order of importance/forces supplied etc or alphabetical order. The current list shows predomance to a colony that just happened to be the battleground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By your own logic, the lead combatant on the Battle of Waterloo article should be the United Kingdom of the Netherlands for providing the playing field regardless of the fact British and Prussian forces provided more troops etc ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A "blatant lie", really? It is sad that you have stooped to name calling when you cannot read the guidelines linked to. For your conveniance, once more: Template:Infobox military conflict, from which i now quote:

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you are making a fool of yourself, i suggest you go find out what country the battle took part in. It was then part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands since Belgium did not exisit. I suppose you would also suggest American Revolution battles took place in the United States ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is suspect: who do you think provided the largest military contribution to the battle? The largest political contribution to the battle? Or the chain of command to the battle? Here is a tip, it was not Malta. British command, primarily British contribution, and the British who ensured the island did not fall and was supplied. Your logic is compeltly suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, further evidence that your logic is suspect: i would suggest re-reading what you wrote, you actually confirm i was right and you were wrong and furthermore see Battle of Waterloo. By your own admission you would be suggesting inaccuratly that Austria would be at the top of the list of combatants in that article ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, it is absurb as are you, your logic and this entire conversation spanning from the fact you cannot read the simple strightforward guidelines and have attempted every possible way to wriggle from them and the mocking examples give to you. No wonder people critise the wiki with editors like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr at Siege of Malta (World War II)

Watch the 3rr, please, at Siege of Malta (World War II). Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Malta (World War II)

original post Hi

Can you look over the edit summary again please. I did not, ever, say his edits were vandalism. It was he who described my edits as such. Further, I don't agree he's trying to prove the article. He was just passing through, took a POV-fancy to something there, and is now warring over it. It is unlikely that he would have returned to the article had I not reverted his edit in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why i labeled that section "Specifically for user 86.4.81.225" - the comment regarding the vandalism warnings was meant for him. I presume the confusion was caused because i tend to use the same reply for both parties. As for 86's edits, please assume good faith. The edits are not plain vandalism or PoV pushing, and he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. If the both of you cannot agree, its likely best to seek a third opinion and go by that. Excirial 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lindemann

It's not up to us to decide. There are credible sources saying morale was targetted. Refute them if you want, but don't just delete. Offhand, I can't say if it was just Lindemann (I don't have the source in front of me); as I recall, there were others, including Churchill, saying morale should be a target. Was it a primary target? Maybe not. Let the reader decide. TREKphiler 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is unreliable because you disagree with the conclusions? I don't say, nor AFAIR have I seen a source saying, morale was the sole target. Germany targetted morale as one objective; so did Britain. Both failed. Saying Germany failed & neglecting to mention the British failure, despite evidence of German failure, I submit, is POV & misleading, especially when there are sources (not just one, BTW) saying that's what happened. TREKphiler 19:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but IDK enough about it to say if you're wrong (tho my reading says so), & don't really care enough to fight over it. :) TREKphiler 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx, I'll keep an eye out. I'm always interested in good sources, especially if I'm wrong. (Because that happens so rarely. ;p ) TREKphiler 20:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about the translation of Reichsmarschall

Hi, I noticed you had a some discussion about this and I thought I should point out you are wrong. Reich as a noun translates as empire or state, but Reichsmarschall should be translated as "Marshal of the empire" or "Imperial Marshal". Reichs- is the genitive form of the word, which marks the noun following it ("marschall") as belonging to the first noun ("Reich"). Yoenit (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambrai 1917

Greetings, I've just started reading OH1917III so I expect to propose the odd amendment to the page (I altered a detail the other day). Is there anything on your mind about the page?Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RAF Coastal Command

It was one of several articles I found recently that are at a high standard but not listed as Good Articles. Hopefully it's not far off. Harrison49 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The review has been completed and a few improvements have been suggested. Do you still have access to some of the sources you used? Harrison49 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Certain points need references but I think you might have already done that. Harrison49 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done, it's passed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt references

Do you have the book details for the references you've added to RAF Northolt? I've nominated the article for featured article status and the suggestions so far are that the full details of the book - publisher, location and ISBN - be added in. Harrison49 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. There's been a request for clarification on the part you added "One of Northolt's commanders, Group Captain Stanley Vincent, shot down an enemy aircraft, making him one of the few RAF airmen to shoot down an enemy aircraft in both world wars." in the Battle of Britain section from the Birtles source. Would you mind taking a look and seeing what you can do? Harrison49 (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Harrison49 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hardest Day

The article The Hardest Day you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Hardest Day for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hardest Day

The article The Hardest Day you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Hardest Day for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

SOviet Airwomen

Hello, how are You doing? I hope you are doing well... May I ask You just one question: my book about the Soviet airwomen has been released http://www.aviolibri.it/prodotti/8678_gian_piero_milanetti_le_streghe_della_notte_la_storia_non_detta_delle_eroiche_ragazze_pilo.php?page=1&ordina=data_inserimento ... I should add some of the datas and informations that I discovered, but I do not know if it is possible in wikipedia... May I quote myself? I am afraid not... regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk)

I already pointed out Gian WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESELF, and I as--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)ked the question, "Who published your book?" Gian has not answered the question. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bergstrom is VERY valuable! I regard his books as very good... just a little expensive... I bought some, but not all... Which You have?

Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Barbarossa unfortunately is not useful, as the female air regiments started their operations in spring 1942... I have both Stalingrad and Kursk, both in my bibliography... I bought a Black Cross-Red Star but my volume finishes before the activity of the Aviatrixes regiments starts...

Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You are very helpful, really... (un)fortunately I have Bagration to Berlin as well... there are some extremely interesting references to female airwomen in it... I received just this morning "Black Cross/Red Star - Everything for Stalingrad" vol. 3, really well done... As You are an Experte of German Aces, do You know by chance, what kind of aircraft Eric Hartmann claimed on the 1st August 1943 and in which place? As on that day Lidya Litvyak was shot down by pilots of JG 52, the same unit of Hartmann...

Have a nice Easter Feast! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, from Russia... That's VERY interesting, as You know, better than me, that the Yak-7 was extremely similar to the Yak-1M that Lidya Litvyak flew usualLY, even that day... So, it could be that Hartmann was the victor of Litvyak... but if I understood well, Hartmann was from II.JG 52, while, according to the "table kills" of our friend RusoArgentino, she encountered, that day, pilots from I.JG 52.

• 1.08.1943 73 GIAP Yak-1b "White 23" Bf.109G-6 W.Nr.15852 Unknown (50% dam) 2./JG 52
• 1.08.1943 73 GIAP Yak-1b "White 23" Bf.109G-6 W.Nr.20423 Hans-Jörg Merkle - KIA (30-kills ace) 1./JG 52

You know if there is a biography, even in German, more specific than those of Toliver and Kurovsky? Cpaccibo! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

HI... Before saying that Hartmann was not the victor of Litvyak, I want to check the two "bibles" in German about the JG 52... I have found one, in Amazon, and I shall ask a researcher of Bundes ARchives to check the other... research never sleeps... Cpacciba y... da skorogo!! Gian --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Priviet! I found it out (95 %): Litvyak was shot down by Hans-Joerge Merkle, from JG 52 (I knew that the unit was that one!), an ace with 30 kills. According to the sources he was the only one to claim a Yak-1 at an height that fits (3.500 meters: Litvyak dived to attack some German bombers while she was at 4000 meters, but when she saw the Bf 109s diving on her, she stopped to dive and started a climb, but was hit by Bf 109s...) Moreover the locations seems to be exactly Dmitrievka, the place where she fell and was buried.

I am waiting to find a book reference but it does seem that Merkle was the one. By the way I need some help: I found some numbers that mean the locations... for instance: 88 267. DO you know how to read these coohordinates or You know someone who may know? Regards, Gian

The source is not primary, if You mean by that if I checked unit record or flight-books... but this source seems really reliable, as I checked the other datas with those that I had and I found exact correspondance... so I would keep it private because I shall insert these datas in my next books about Soviet air women... unless we comunicate on private e mails... what happened to Merkle? It seems - but about that I am less sure -that he was hit by an enemy aircraft, I mean: rammed, and that the pilot died... now... as for what I know - and I have not few files and books about last flight of Litvyak - nobody of her squadron declared to have rammed an enemy fighter... it could be that Litvyak rammed Merkle and then parachuted... as there were clouds, nobody saw her descending... but those last opinions are still not supported by evidence... about the datas of the locations they should be cohordinates of some kind, probably of German map because they dont fit with latitude and longitude...

let me know, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no no... I found it out, asking to Christer Bergstrom, the aviation historian: they are coordinates of Luftwaffe maps, there is just one number wrong out of five of that one that otherwise should identify Dmitrievka, the place where Litvyak was shot down. SO, I can confirm it to You: Merkle was the victor of Litvyak but please keep it confidential as I want to insert this information in my next books... Do you know by chance where I could find pictures of these pilots? Bundes archives? They dont have... Any other place, please?

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Flax

The article Operation Flax you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Operation Flax for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

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

GFM von Richthofen

Hello. I saw your message in MisterBee's talkpage, and being the page stalker that I am, I took the initiative to answer here (however "ininvited" in a way). I bought the biography by Corum (Wolfram von Richthofen: Master of the German Air War) back in winter 2010, and not yet having seen it in MisterBee's wiki-library, I assumed you can find some of the content useful. If you are interested, contact me via e-mail so we chan exchange some material. Best regards --Jake V (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Alternatively, there is a 5-page biography in Gerd R. Ueberschär's "Hitlers militärische Elite" by Gerhard Hümmelchen, which I consider to be a more than satisfying source for the expansion you're planning. In Corum's book there is a description of his personality — for instance, during the Spanish Civil War, his staff nicknamed him "The Tartar". However, I doubt I can help in the "combat sections" because I don't know much about aviation history. When I am done with some other obligations in early June I could take active part in the writing about life aspects you don't have much info about, or you don't feel like writing. Richthofen's biography is very interesting in my opinion, and I'd also add the article has great potential if one decides to put some serious effort on it --Jake V (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look what I have on him. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, it was quite a temptation for me, too. One could notice it hasn't the highest possible ratings @ Amazon, however I believe it is worth the money. Good luck with your planning, anyway --Jake V (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just started reading his biography. I will comment on the article once I read the book. The lead is a bit long. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still reading! I made some additions mostly regarding the Wehrmachtbericht, which is complete now. Please check if my translations make sense. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RAF Coastal Command during World War II

Yes I'd be happy to, would you like me to review it for GA status or wait until you've added everything you can? Harrison49 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you add the GA nomination tag to it I'll review it in the usual fashion for you tomorrow. Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you add the GA nominee tag? Once you do I'll review it in the usual way. Harrison49 (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I get started properly, there are a few disambiguation links which need clarifying . Harrison49 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille

Have you seen the recent change to the article? It looks like total BS to me but I want to double check with you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

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

Your GA nomination of RAF Coastal Command during World War II

The article RAF Coastal Command during World War II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAF Coastal Command during World War II for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

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

Tirpitz

You may want to chip in at the current A-Class review. I am especially concerned that the role the Luftwaffe played in her loss is not addressed at all. This is a must on my yard stick for A-Class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

kURSK bOOK

Ok, thanks for Your advice, I am going to buy it noW!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft infobox date of retirement - He 111

My source does not talk about the CASA model. Please provide a source that states that no German-built HE-111 was in service after 1945. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey all had HE-111 after 1945.Panzertank (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to high quality content work. For the Military history Project coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference FIAT CR.42 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).