User talk:Oberiko

This user may have left Wikipedia. Oberiko has not edited Wikipedia since 26 January 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archived talk: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

The December 2007 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) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to renamed British India, as many pakistanis and bangledhis fought in the war, inclduing former pakistani preseident yayaha khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.125.175 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tenshinhan photo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated No. 17, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 17 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oberiko, I thought it might as well be time to drop you a note, since I haven't been keeping my word on feedbacking to you on the WW2 rewrite, which I feel some guilt for, especially since I know you have put so very much work into it. It seems I've hit some kind of wiki-wall(?) concerning WW2 (probably after doing this Holocaust map, that was a toughie). I'd like to help out more, but I just can't seem to find the strength at the moment, don't really know why. Anyway, I hope to get back to you on the matters, but don't count on me at the moment..:( I'm keeping my wikying at minimum level, and on science stuff, no WW2. Hope everything's ok with you, and good luck wikying. See you, hopefully soon, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you reverted my edits?--mrg3105mrg3105 15:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think there is a chronological problem in the article division? Liberation of Western Europe came at the same time as Invasion of Germany (as well as Austria and Czechia). I would suggest that the structure needs to be:

1 Course of the war

• 1.1 Overview
  
• 1.2 European Theatre
  

o 1.2.1 Events leading up to the war in Europe
o 1.2.2 Germany’s war against the Western Allies
+ 1.2.2.1 Blitzkrieg
+ 1.2.2.2 Battle of the Atlantic
+ 1.2.2.3 Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East
o 1.2.3 German-Soviet War
+ 1.2.3.1 Invasion of the Soviet Union
+ 1.2.3.2 Germany’s second offensive
+ 1.2.3.3 Germany’s third offensive
+ 1.2.3.4 Soviet offensives
o 1.2.4 End of the war in Europe
+ 1.2.4.1 Liberation of Western Europe
+ 1.2.4.2 Invasion of Germany

I would also like to rename "Invasion of Germany" to the "Liberation of Eastern Europe". After all, Germany was not invaded from the East in the way it invaded Soviet Union. It was a continuation of the course of the war which liberated countries from German occupation. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Dark side (magical theory), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I noticed you have this on your to do list. It is now merged with the Eastern Front, and I am revising this article in line with developing articles for all the missing (and some mis-named) operations. I was wondering if you can make any suggestions on the current Eastern Front (World War II) structure; all are appreciated. Please keep in mind this is only the start of the revision. The next stage will be to introduce syncronisation of major Wehrmacht campaigns and Red Army campaigns within the scope of the three periods of the war. The eventual structure of the article by sections and subsections is intended to take the shape of:

Periods of war

Campaigns

Strategic operations

Operations

Battles (tactical) where they are notable in military histories, e.g. Battle of Lenino

I also think that the Leadership section nees to be at the start fo the article because the personalities of Hitler and Stalin had much to do in explaining the causes and the conduct of war in the Theatre.Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently received a list of Soviet Operations from Craig Crofoot which was compiled by Michael Avanzini and David Glantz. It closely conforms to mine. The spreadsheet runs to 367 Frontal Operation particpations. These will be mirrored by German Army. I'd be happy to send it to you if you have an email address you are prepared to share with me.

However the job remains to synchronise it with the German campaigns and operations. I would prefer if we could work together on this since I can see you have done quite a bit of thinking on the subject. Outside of the three periods defined by the Soviet historians I don't think its possible to describe the events of the Eastern Front as anything other then an ebb-and-flow of offensives and counter-offensives. I have started listing them on the respective German Army Group article pages. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 13:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just had a quick glance at the many bold letters and didn't realize you were citing. Already removed my comment. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: "Operation Ha (Ha-gō sakusen, ハ 号作戦) being routinely translated as "Operation Z" becase Ha (ハ) is the 26th katakana symbol by the common ordering scheme". Can you source that? It would settle a dispute at Attack on Pearl Harbor. Trekphiler (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in the mistranslation. If there's a way to substantiate "Z" is a mistake, it would lay to rest the "Op Z" ref, 'cause I can source it as "HA", per standard IJN practise for codenames (1st 2 letters of the Japanese name of the objective). If you can trace it, put it up at Attack on Pearl Harbor? Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW, if you do find it, let me know? I'd be interested for my own use, too.)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ob. I've replied to your note on my talk page. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oberiko, I requested a peer review at WP:MILHIST for the new version of World War II, which you nearly single-handedly created. The page can be found here if you want to keep track of what's said there. I just wanted to let you know. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:List_of_office_suites#Merge_list_of_office_suites_to_office_suite --Karnesky (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you don’t check the discussion page for the Siege of Tobuk article for some time am just posting this here to, hope you don’t mind.

The comment you posted: “especially since the British believed (due to intercepting Paulus' report) that the Axis forces were pretty much ready to fall apart”

Do you have a source etc for this, as I think it would make a nice addition to the Brevity article as I have noted after all the editing which has been done there is a few bits and bobs which are still missing.

Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oberiko :) Yes, the book contains high-quality photographs about all the phases of the war, including the Kursk battle. I will upload some photos of the battle, and the Katusha missile launcher, but I will be able to do that in Monday. So, bye till then. P.S. Where are you from? Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in principle. It might be a good idea to retain the separation (within the new box) of the Malta Convoys, as these have a coherent identity and are not readily identifiable in the mass of actions (there is also a summary article on the subject (Malta Convoys) which could replace the various convoys in the box). But I won't fight over it. Folks at 137 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one puts chronological sequence as the only criterion, then, yes, it's a problem. One of the boxes separates convoys as a separate topic (as you mentioned). In opinion, this would be ok, also only a ref to the summary article would suffice. A box shouldn't seek to be compehensive if summary articles are available; it would lose its ability to point readers to topics. Have you canvassed "Dagos Navy"'s opinion? He's an active contributor. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a reasonable approach. I won't start a war, in any case. Suggestion: do the changes that you propose and await reaction: might be good to alert regular contributors to your work. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oberiko. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history for the third time. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If I'm reading this correctly, the article in question is simply a review (by John Lukacs, in the October 1986 issue of The American Historical Review) of J. Lee Ready's book of that name - is it in fact the text of the review that you are interested in? Carom (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest an archive? Kodster (Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

if you want to fully understand the decision making process of the Shōwa regime and the events of autumn 1941, I suggest you read these chapters in Wetzler's Hirohito and War : Imperial Navy Planning and the Emperor , Pearl Harbor and Decision Making and Tōjō and the Emperor : Mutual Political Convictions. To make it short, let's just write that Hirohito, enraged by the lack of success in China, did not want the war against Occident and the military leaders had to work hard to convince him even if the attack plan was ready. After having nominated Tōjō, Hirohito immediately ordered him to make a «policy review» of the pro-war policy. On 30th November, after his brother warning, he summoned Nagano and Shimada to be sure the war wold be successful. You will find a short resumee here : [[1]] --Flying tiger (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your answer. If you agree with the facts, I do not see the problem of keeping one sentence (!!!)about the official decision making process...As without Emperor's authorization, there woul d have been NO war. There are much more superfluous sentences in the article!!--Flying tiger (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here http://maps.poehali.org/en/catalogue/ I will propose we use these with edited graphics as required. The advantage is that they are available in different scales, and once modified become non-copyright original works of the editor (I think).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should move Japanese expansion (1941-1942) to Japanese expansion (1940-1942), and add the French possession. Because the article discusses mostly about actions in Southeast Asia and little bit about the Pacific. And French Indochina was somewhat included in the Southeast Asian campaign.

You've made some mistakes in the article: 1) Missing Japanese Invasion of Thailand; 2) Malaya (also Thailand) occurred before Pearl Harbor; 3) Singapore occurred after Burma. JacquesNguyen (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oberiko, how are you? As I promised I uploaded the Eastern Front photos you required : [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Regards --Revizionist (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by userrs--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what's that? I don't quite follow. Oberiko (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have reference works with the data that you need. I will be home tonight at 9 PM after TaeKwanDo. The WW2 Casualties page is getting a bit bulky, maybe we could create a separate page that breaks out casualties by theatre.
For the US we have detailed statistics by month and campaign for the Army/Air Corps. The Navy/Marine Corps by campaign and by year.
Overmans has data by month for the entire German Army and the eastern front.
Official Italian data is broken out by month and campaign, they also have the province in Italy they orginated from. That's what I call detail.
For the UK & Commonwealth we have totals by year for all deaths, Clodfelter has details by campaign.
Krivosheev has Soviet data for every major battle of the war and totals by quarter.
For Japan all I have is Dowers figures for each campaign, also yearly estimates made by MacArthur's office in Tokyo in 1947.
The big enchilada is Clodfelter, his book is chock full of data, unfortunately he does not citehis soirces.
I have the Overmans, Clodfelter, Krivosheev, the MacArthur study, the US and Italian reports.
As for the Sino-Japanese war get a copy of Frank Dorns book, I read it back in 1975.
Try inter library loan:
Dorn, Frank Sino-Japanese War, 1937-41: From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor
Hardcover, ISBN 0025322001 Publisher: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York, 1974 477 pages.
I wish that official Chi-Com history gets translated into English.
I would be more than glad to work with you to build a page devouted to casualties by campaign. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Eastern Front page casualties section, the casualties listed are correct for the final total of dead. There is no data on POWS taken in the war, that must be taken into account from a military operational point of view. Also there is no chrononologial breakdown of these losses. Overmans has data only for German war dead and POWs lost on the Eastern Front. Soviet figures of war losses are detailed by Krivosheev, there are serious problems with his numbers. The first and formost is that he estimates only 1.3 million POW dead, we both know the actual POW death toll was near 3 million. The second major problem is that he cannot reconcile his figure of 8.6 million war dead to the number of men drafted and those in the forces at the end of the war. This was pointed out to me on the Axis History Forum by a Russian interested in topic. [11]

Do you have the Overmans and Krivosheev books?--Woogie10w (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Glantz has published a number of books, I recommend them all. His coverage of the military aspects of the war from the Soviet perspective is first rate scholarship. Col.Glantz gave a series of lectures in New York and Germany from 1986-92 that I attended. He is a real cool guy, not the typical snooty academic wonk.
When you get your hands on Clodfelter, bring some pocket change to feed the copier.
Krivosheev is available on BookFinder.com for $13, it's a freeking steal, His data on Soviet losses in the war for every major battle is worth the price of the book. .
These two gems are older books that have statistics on the Eastern Front. They are available on bookfinder.com. Definitely worth every penny they are charging. .
James F Dunnigan Russian Front: Russia and Germany at War, 1941-45 Hardcover, ISBN 085368152X Publisher: Arms & Armour Press, 1978.
DUPUY-MARTELL Great Battles On The Eastern Front 1982.
--Woogie10w (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add these to your list:
Ziemke, Earl F. Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East
Ziemke, Earl F. Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East
The two Ziemke books were published by the U.S. Army, excellant coverage of the war from a military operational POV
Erickson, John R. The Road to Stalingrad
Erickson, John The Road to Berlin
The Erickson books are classics, he was the first historian to open the door to Soviet scholarship for the English speaking world. Prior to Erickson the German interpertation of the campaign was accepted as gospel.
Seaton, Albert The Russo-German War 1941-45.
Another classic, it was the first serious history of the war in English, still worth reading.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was aired back in 1978 on PBS, I need to add it to my collection. After 30 years I still consider this as being my favorite documentary
The Unknown War was a landmark television series, detailing the drama of the Eastern European front during World War II. Academy Award Winner Burt Lancaster hosts the 20 part series. Film footage from Soviet archives comprises a major portion of the series, supplemented by film from both the United States and British archives [12]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorn, Frank. The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1941: From the Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor. New York: Macmillan, 1974. 477 pages ISBN 0-02-532200-1 Acknowledgments; maps; photos; notes; bibliography; index. Appendix: OBs listed by campaign. The best book in English on military aspects of the SJC. Unfortunately, does not cover the 1942-1945 period. Dorn, who was on the staff of the American military attache and later served in the field as advisor to a Chinese army, writes very well about the military operations, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each side, and shrewdly describes the leading personalities. This is not a personal memoir, but he leavens the whole thing with brief but revealing episodes from his own experiences during the fighting. Good maps. Excellent OB and TOE information.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Clodfelter, Micheal: Warfare and armed conflicts : a statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500-2000, ISBN 0786412046
• Krivosheev, Grigoriy: Soviet casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century, ISBN 1853672807 9781853672804

This link has a summary of the Overmans data on German WW2 losses. Go to the section “Military Losses” [13]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find this book of interest. The chapter on the Sino-Japanese war has citations to numerous sources that estimate war losses. R. Rummel , China's Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 ISBN 1412806704 Publisher: Transaction Pub, 2007--Woogie10w (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details of U.S. Army casualties are listed online at [14]. The details of United States Army Air Forces losses are listed online at[15]. Toward the end of the report you will find a detailed statistical breakdown of Army/AirCorps casualties by campaign. The details of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps losses are listed online at [16].--Woogie10w (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oberiko, are you deliberately excluding the photos which I have spent so many time preparing and uploading on the Wikipedia? P.S. You asked me for these photos. Awaiting an answer. --Revizionist (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oberiko, as agreed, there are now two photographs in the World_War_II#Allies_close_in section of the article. Cheers. --Revizionist (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a post on the WW2 casualties talk page. What is your opinion? We Could expand this to include every major campaign using the sources that I have; Ellis, Clodfelter, Krivosheev and the US Army report.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could we move this project to a temporary/sandbox type format while working on it? I am contemplating 100-200 separate boxes like the Polish Campaign. We could cover every major battle and campaign of the war. Maybe separate`pages for the Western, Eastern and Far Eastern fronts would be necessary. The air and naval War need coverage also. What are your thoughts on the scope of this project. Clodfelter and Krivoshev have thousands of numbers for us to crunch.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include AFV because the statistics usually do not list armoured cars.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Russian site has a statistics on WW2[17]. I plan to print the pages out and translate the relevant portions. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of my thoughts on casualties
Forces committed could include combat troops in the field as well as support elements in the rear. The sources are not always clear as to actual breakdown.
Casualties will include wounded that later die as well as wounded who are returned to units. Based on actual experience about 7% die of wounds and 30% are discharged as disabled. The raw statistics from a battle or campaign do not provide this information. Men lost due to disease and accidents also are usually not included with battle casualties. Personnel lost due to tropical disease was a serious problem for the US in 1942, the Germans and Soviets lost many men due to frostbite. In 1944 there was a significant undercounting by the OKW of German losses due to the chaos of the war. According to Overmans the reporting system missed up to 2 million war dead, mostly in 1944-45. The Clodfelter statistics are derived from the unreliable OKW data. On the Soviet side about 1.5 million men were missed in the official statistics due to the chaos in the early part of the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you please add source information about the images used in Image:WW2Montage.PNG, so it can be verified that they are public domain (or the license be adjusted, if necessary)? As-is, the image is prone to getting speedied. -- Lea (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have major contribution in World War II related articles, I am asking you how about an article titled Possible consequence of Axis victory in World War II? The article may be somewhat speculative, but certainly there are scholarly works available on this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oberiko. World War II/temp has been marked as uncategorized by a bot. Sub pages is disabled in article name space, so the /temp is just an ordinary article. Perhaps it should be userfied or moved to a sub page in talk name space e.g. "Talk:World War II/temp/article" or what you prefer. Very nice effort by the way. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regia Marina ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago you added Harrop, Martin. Power and Policy in Liberal Democracies, pg. 29 that ref to WWII, now I have used it in a different article for the same sentence it was used for in WWII and User:Mathsci has stated that it is not appropriate for what you used it for, as it is not available on google ook, could you please confirm that it is appropriate, if that wouldn't be too much trouble. (Appropriate to back up the statement that the UK experienced economic decline after WWII.) Thanks. Harland1 (^t/_c) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks terribly for looking it up. Would it be alright for me to use the new source in Europe, economy section then? Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Wassup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimithebrain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted your move of this back to Struggle for Kharkov. I had stated why the move was performed in the talk page, but you had not chosen to discuss the subject. The point is not that the "battle", actually an offensive by two Soviet Fronts, is better known as the 2nd Battle of Kharkov, but that the it is referenced according to the name it was actually given in the historical sources. The source for the "2nd Battle of Kharkov" is from a post-war German source that dealt with war history in a sequential rather then chronological manner. This is not acceptable in the discipline of history unless there is a direct chronological relationship between the first and the second events, such as the Second Battle of El Alamein. The several more current English sources mostly use name and date, or "Battle of" which is ahistorical also.

• Glantz, Kharkov 1942 Anatomy of a Military Disaster Through Soviet Eyes
• Atlas & Survey the Soviet Kharkov Offensive, 12-29 May 1942
• Southwestern Front's Operations along the Khar'kov Axis in May 1942
• Jean Restayn, The Battle for Kharkov, Winter 1942/1943
• Dunnigan, James F. (Editor), Strategy & Tactics Number 68 (Includes the game Kharkov; the Soviet Spring Offensive 12 May to 21 May 1942.)
• Agte, Patrick, The Battle for Kharkov, Winter 1942-1943
• Galuszko, A., Polish Militaria Series 200: Kharkov 1942

As can be seen the Kharkov (1942) is not the solution, and Kharkov Offensive is already used by the German Kharkov Offensive Operation which used to be "3rd Battle of Kharkov", and which I'm considering suggesting to be renamed as the Kharkov Counter-offensive Operation, since that appears to be what Manstein called it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the sources you used for this article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? Oberiko (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We started a project on battle casualties in WW2 back in March, but I never heard from you. I asumed you were studying for exams or working OT at the office. We can resume work on the project if you have the time. I am ready and willing--Woogie10w (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look @ the WW2 Encylopedia in the library tomorrow, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please come and contribute to our discussions at WT:MHSP. Buckshot06(prof) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Hi Oberiko. As you'll have seen from the WT:MHSP discussions, there are some people interested in getting WW II and WW I a bit more up to scratch. Originally I wanted to get some professors to give their inputs on the appropriate structure, but that doesn't seem to be happening, maybe because our history students are on vacation in the northern hemisphere. Would you be able to lay out your vision for the WW II article, noting its current strengths and weaknesses, on the WT:MHSP page, and we can start a discussion about what needs to be done, and who can contribute to each section of it? Appreciate your advice. Best regards from DownUnder, Buckshot06(prof) 10:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's really great! Please crosspost that on the WT:MHSP page, and remember that all the people who signed up there want to help out, so feel free to ask any of them for assistance. Regards Buckshot06(prof)

You made a proposal awhile ago on re-structuring this article; was that something you were intending to do, or was it a just a suggestion? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the figures in the Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History, it is apparent that these folks have a shallow understanding of the topic. Take China for example, they list 1 million civilian dead in China. In the Hankow campaign of 1938 alone about 2 million civilians perished, according to Frank Dorn in his Sino-Japanese War 1937-41. 1 million civilan deaths and 1.3 million military deaths in a country of 500 million over a period of 8 years of brutal warfare makes no sense at all, the figure of 15-20 million total dead estimated by Ho Ping To of Harvard is closer to reality. I would not use the figures from the table. What are your thoughts?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are not "mine". The sources back up what is on the page. My original research is never ever posted on that page. China, for example, got bumped up to 20 million by a guy from China who cited the official figure, that was a wicked edit war that I lost back in March 2007. We need to get the numbers right, I don't care what the bottom line is, just as long as the numbers for each country are correct and they add down. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise and experience with editing World War II related articles may be helpful at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force/Category_restructuring Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oberiko. I was wondering if you are watching this article? I noticed there has been some edit-warring by some IPs on it, and was wondering if you could have a look given your editing in the World War II main article. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May 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) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its unfortunate that you don't have an email address because I would rather write to you in private on the subject. I have been going over your work on the Second World War, and it seems to me that aside from missing many large Soviet operations, the economic coverage is still not there, and it was largely a war about economies. Also the effect on the civilians is unbalanced towards casualty counting. There was also the "home front". Another aspect is the cultural shifts. The war made the radio, the movies and the TV a part of the social conciseness, and the war had an effect on the arts also. In any case, what I would like to do is make some suggestions. I know you have done a huge amount of work on this, and I am not about to start editing without your consensus. What do you think about this? Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your third reversion in 24 hours

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Flying tiger (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your reversions doesn't really count there Flying Tiger. Oberiko (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You began by deleting ALL my edit one by one... Since you have infringed the 3RR, I asked for protection. [[18]] --Flying tiger (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete them all. I trimmed where you mention things twice, removed units that are minor, cleaned up the grammar, and cleared some text that disrupted sourced material. Oberiko (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. [[19]] --Flying tiger (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll notice that all my additions go through a pretty rigorous approval process on the discussion page, I'm not doing anything unilaterally. It is you, Flying Tiger, that are acting solo on this. Oberiko (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oberiko (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was restoring to text which had achieved consensus and was actively encouraging the other party to use the discussion page

Decline reason:

Edit warring is among the least effective and least desirable approaches to conflict resolution. The brief block is appropriate. — Athaenara ✉ 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please read User:The_Evil_Spartan/Unblock#If_you_were_blocked_for_edit_warring. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting here per User talk:Athaenara request

Hi Athaenara. I would like to request that you kindly unblock Oberiko. His work on the article World War II has been ongoing for months, subject to the Military History Project and discussed in talk, having gained relatively wide consensus among the project members. This may seem like ownership, however on complex articles like this it really does require a single editor to coordinate all the input. Flying tiger had not participated in significant discussion in talk, or attempted to following 2 reverts. I can assure you the project has capable admins as part of its organisation who are well able to deal with edit conflicts and institute blocks should hey be required. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara. I would like to second this request from Mrg3105. Oberiko has been instrumental in building a consensus on required upgrades to World War II, and as far as I can tell, does not deserve to be blocked, even if he broke 3RR in a moment of annoyance. I would kindly request that this block be removed. Please also consider the last talk sections at Talk:World War II. Buckshot06(prof) 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support guys, but I'll state that it was not a moment of annoyance. I consider myself to have been justifiably getting us back to the consensus and tracking/reverting Flying Tiger's reversions (holding him to 3RR); if a similar situation were to come up again, I'd do the same thing, as I've done countless times on numerous pages. In any case, 24 hours isn't long (I've got to get some sleep anyway) and I can work on the images. It'll have to go through another round of discussions again, and I can do that from here and cut-and-paste to the WWII discussion tomorrow. Oberiko (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the other editors who have noted that Oberiko violated the 3RR in good faith in order to protect the consensus on WWII article, engaging in an edit war wasn't the best way to handle this. A better approach would have been to raise the issue on the article's talk page and develop a consensus about user:Flying tiger's significant changes, even if this took a few days - that way there would have been multiple editors willing to protect the consensus version of the article and a 3RR situation wouldn't have developed. The Military History Wikiproject's stress hotline and the WWII task force's talk page could also have been used to notify interested editors of this dispute. I note that Flying Tiger has also been blocked and think that both blocks, which are at the low end of the scale, are justified. That said, as Oberiko was defending the consensus version of the article, which has been developed through a very impressive process of consultative editing, Flying Tiger's claims that Oberiko is asserting 'ownership' are totally wrong and suggest that they have not been following the process which has been used to turn this article from the mess it was a few months ago into its current excellent form. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that WP:3RR does not say: "The one editor who is making the right reverts is exempt from the rule". But instead just states that no editor shall make more than 3 reverts to one revision in a period of 24 hours as to not disrupt the article. Understand that it takes at least two to edit war, and if one of you would have been the bigger man here and stopped reverting the other , and maybe instead tried contacting a admin or posting at WP:ANI, blocking would not have been necessary. I would like to say through that I feel Oberiko (you) is (are) handling his (your) block very well, and is (you)(are) understanding that it is in the projects best interest for the article to have a little break from the edit war. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Oberiko, please contact me through the email link on my userpage. Should you not be editing while you're blocked? Please wait and let us get you unblocked, rather than risking your value by skirting the restrictions. Buckshot06(prof) 07:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I think (1) Oberiko is behaving well during the brief block and (2) the edits/notetaking above ["Pictures for impact section" below] are not inappropriate. — Athaenara ✉ 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I think he was behaving well to start with (for months). I was under the impression that the discussion with Flying tiger had concluded yesterday! Truly "bolt from the clear sky" (no pun to Flying tiger intended) blocking a major contributor to an article placed #1 on a Project special projects list! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were still edit waring today. Just check the page history. Tiptoety ^talk 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until this block is over with, I may as well continue on.

Since the last section is up, now all that's left is to get the images for it. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Home fronts and production: I think we'd be best suited to have a graph showing the oil/coal, iron ore and GDP for each of the major nations for each year. Either that or total planes, ships and AFVs for each nation by year.
• War time occupation: Considering the sizeable contribution of Vichy France to the Nazi economy, I think this image would be best.
• Advances in technology and warfare: We have, I think, a few choices here: either a two-four picture montage for each paragraph, or a gallery at the bottom. I lean towards the former myself. Oberiko (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I think that a graph of just GDP for the main powers would be better - this would tell the same story in a much simpler way. 2) Given that the dominant experiance of occupation was humiliation and oppression, a photo showing day-to-day life for civilians would be better (eg, German/Japanese troops in the middle of a city, etc) 3) I like the gallery option, perhaps showing early-war and end of war technologies? (eg, a Me-109 and a P-51D) Nick Dowling (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Soviet oil production:
  • 1938 - 263.2 million barrels.^[1]
  • 1945 - 140.8 million barrels.^[1]

• Should add American Two-Ocean Navy Act (aka Vinson-Walsh Act) of 1940. Oberiko (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The United States provided 80% of Japan's oil prior to the 1941 embargo.^[2]
• With the oil embargo, Japan was essentially forced to choose between withdrawing from their aggression in Asia, or seizing the oil they needed directly; the Japanese military did not even consider the former an option, and many of them considered the oil embargo as an unspoken declaration of war.^[3]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		To Oberiko, for perservering in the face of so many problems and critics to constantly improve World War II Skinny87 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't go to a better or more deserving person. Keep up the good work! Skinny87 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Skinny, much appreciated! Oberiko (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Buckshot06(prof) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an oversight that it hasn't been awarded earlier. Buckshot06(prof) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buckshot, looks like I've stumbled on the end of the rainbow today. Oberiko (talk)

I don't see any impediment to building a narrative which includes all the "reputable" sources about which you're seeking feedback. There are obviously two ways of looking at the war. One is to trace back to the initial conflicts which escalated into World War, the other is, at what point did the conflict become truly "global"--this would require conditions such as Japan and the U.S. being declared combatants. These two views are not mutually exclusive. For what it's worth. —PētersV (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a slight change in perspective, that is, don't write it from the perspective of an inventory of dates and let the reader decide. "When did WWII begin?" needs to be written so that it pulls all the dates and seed conflicts into a cohesive narrative. I know, no small challenge. Otherwise it will continue to somewhat confuse readers and leave openings for POVs regarding particular dates. —PētersV (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my adition about war in Yugoslavia, because resistance movements are in different sections. (but in this case, why you keep mention of rebel in Warszava). Partisan movement in Yugoslavia is important to mention due to following facts:

• Number of soldiers was quite big: 80,000 (1941), 300,000 (1943) 800,000 (1945). Axis soldiers grew to 720,000 to fight against this movement
• It constantly had free teritorry, although not permanently located, which typically acted like organized state with central city (Uzice, Bihac, Foca, Jajce, Vis, Belgrade)
• In 1943 it is recognized as allied force.
• Yugoslav front since 1944 was connection between Eastern and Western frontMegaribi (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oberiko. If you have some time, please take a look at Allied submarine usage in the Pacific War. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not angry at anybody for saying that they were called racist or anything else. I'm aware that there have been many uncivil comments and personal attacks. In fact, I'm having trouble keeping up with them all. I know what's saved is already saved. And I will try my best not to take any action if it stops now. Punishment is not what is going to help us determine the start date of World War 2. Thank you.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For maintaining your cool in spite of unreasonable attacks on you and your excellent work on the WWII article. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Oberiko, I was wondering if you know the name of this book about the Pacific War. I saw it in a bookstore half a year ago, I think its name has something like "official us army history" or something similar, like it was prepared by the us army. It goes into much more detail than the usual mass consumption books. I'm particularly interested in this since it talks about the US army program in China. And no I'm not looking for Romanus/Sutherland's volumes. Thank you very much. BTW, great job on the WW2 articles:) Blueshirts (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I’ve not replied to your structure proposal before now; partly it’s because I wasn’t sure what to say or where to say it.
The chronology idea is interesting; are you thinking it could be used for a Timeline article later?
I looked at the blue links in the article, but gave up after a hundred, though it was useful to show up the areas of interest.
The list on the talk page has a problem, though, as Convoy PQ-16, Convoy PQ-17, Battle of the Barents Sea and Battle of North Cape belong to the Arctic campaign, rather than BotA, and the Channel Dash was Home Waters. ( We don’t seem to have an article on that, yet. Or an over-arching piece on the War at Sea, either.)
I’m not clear on your intent; are you thinking of re-writing the whole piece? It was re-written in 2006 and the content seems OK, with tweaks.
My main concern with it was that the technical stuff was all mixed up with the events, which confused the narrative; I thought your first proposal to re-arrange what’s here would have resolved that. And maybe some of the sections should be moved to their own pages.
Xyl 54 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nachi Robotic Systems Inc., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Lincolnite (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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) 02:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Dragon Ball sagas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Your condensed version of the WWII article is much appreciated! This award is given on behalf of readers everywhere who wish to gain general knowledge of World War II, not be overwhelmed with details added by WWII-obsessed editors. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tien Shinhan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tien Shinhan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 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) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Dragon Ball races, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Dragon Ball races has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Dragon Ball races, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cromwell tank color.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Cromwell-.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: [[Image:Cromwell-.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 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) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Firearm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm taking Tetrarch (tank) through its Featured Article Candidacy, and one of the images ([20]) is missing permission for it having been uploaded as it's a colour reproduction of a picture from a website where anyone can upload files. You uploaded the file in 2005 and I was hoping you might be able to help me in regards to it? Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great graph--really puts the war in perspective (I always thought of the Western front, but man the Eastern front was so much worse.Rdchambers (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]