User talk:Molestash

Molestash is currently so wikibonked that they have gone to sleep. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and therefore the user should return to Wikipedia in time.

Archives

1, 2, 3

yeah there seem some areas milhist taggers have not gone, unless I, as a milhist and ships skeptic have misinterpreted scope, like some do - there are yet subjects and categories that have not yet got milhist projecttags JarrahTree 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I am interpreting your statement correctly; you are saying there are MILHIST articles not yet tagged that are in the MILHIST scope? If that is correct, you are correct. --Molestash (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting as to categories even untagged as well - clearly of relevance to military history as could be interpreted without checking project scope JarrahTree 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

There is a Wikipedia article on 'The Use of Force by States'. The article seeks to summarise the rules of Public International Law which govern the use of force by states. Notwithstanding the title, this is essentially a legal article, not an article on military history. As a former teacher of Public International Law, I am uneasy both about the content of the article and about its current assessment rating. It would benefit in my opinion from being reviewed and assessed (and indeed edited) by a lawyer currently engaged in Public International Law - either as an academic or as a practitioner. (The two categories often overlap). Articles in this area may be highly contentious. There is a potential for adverse impact on Wikipedia's international reputation. It is very desirable that such articles reflect the consensus of academic and practitioner opinion, and are properly sourced. There may be a general issue about the assignment of essentially legal articles to the Military History project - the people best placed to review, assess and edit may not spot the articles. Gwedi elwch (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gawker Media. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Molestash - Thank you for reviewing Sinking Creek Raid. Someday, I may try to improve it to GA. Is there anything obvious that you think should be addressed? TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can tell you is that you are missing is a citation at the end of the second paragraph of "To Cold Knob Mountain" section. After that it will meet a B class and I think GA as well. You've done good work and I liked the read. --Molestash (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)--Molestash (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I will fix that, and have a few additional footnotes that I plan to add—and some wiki links too. Thank you. TwoScars (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Just out of curiosity, in what way does "Referencing and citation" come out as criterion not met? EEng 00:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Citation Need Tag in the bottom paragraph in background. --Molestash (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-HA!. How thorough. EEng 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best, thanks for asking and not straight reverting me. --Molestash (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Molestash. Thank you for assessing Rommel: The Desert Fox‎. Could you let me know how referencing can be improved to meet B1 criterion? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at it I think I got messed up by the quote in the reception seciton. I'll update accordingly. --Molestash (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello. Just seen that you reordered the WPs in alphabetical order on this talkpage. Is there a rule for it or is that a personal preference of yours please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal preference --Molestash (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

		Military history service award
		For your efforts during March Madness 2017, you are hereby awarded this barnstar. Thank you for your contributions. Cheers. Catlemur (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

I was going to list 3d Troop Carrier Squadron for assessment — someday. Thanks for doing it. In view of the plethora of articles on USAF units, I found it hard to believe there was no article on the squadron. Let me add:

• Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for Assessing an article that should have been written long ago

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for your review of the M76 Otter, unfortunately there just don't seem to be many WP:RS giving details about it. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for noticing my new article Terrorist Recognition Handbook ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

All done, mate. Message is on article talk page. Ominae (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, good work. --Molestash (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. I'm just being curious. You assessed [1] this article as B, but as I understand the criteria, B class articles should "reasonably cover the topic". This article is nowhere near complete, and is yet to cover half the war. Have I misunderstood something? FactotEm (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2017

B2 is the coverage and I think it's fine. It's already way more detailed then needed and since you've got continuous work in it I figured it'd be ok. If you want me to address it back down to start, let me know. Molestash (talk)

It is proving to be a bit of a monster, and I'm considering spinning it out to separate articles. My feeling is that it is Start, but I'm not precious about it. Whatever you see fit is fine by me. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

who would have thought no=yes ? I was bit suspicious about whether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Royal_Garrison_Artillery_officers was correct - please let me know what I need to modify there if I got that series wrong - thanks JarrahTree 00:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding task force tags to Categories is something I am not clear on if you should do or not. I always do it anyways to be safe. --Molestash (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your caution for the no=yes I think is well worth the effort - as Milhist is so well organised I am sure it is good form JarrahTree 02:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Royal_Garrison_Artillery_officers - that looks much better JarrahTree 02:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

You may have realised by now, but just in case you haven't B-class assessments should be in lower case or the assessment is void :- b1=y|b2=y etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that a little later than I should've with all the assessing I do. Thanks. --Molestash (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

You have assessed the article National Security Action Memorandum 273 as "start" -- an opinion which I challenge. The wikipedia definition of a "start" article is "Some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." This article far exceeds that definition, containing all the material an average reader needs to know. It is as complete as an encyclopedia article need be, accurate, well referenced, and well written. Certainly there is room for improvement in all articles -- Shakespeare could have used an editor -- but to call this a "start article" is incorrect and misleading. Smallchief (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ever find it tacky to call your own work well written and comparing it to Shakespeare?

I personally rated a start article after comparing it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class

Reasons:

1: It fails B1. The inline citations are inconsistent and lack exact page numbers. See reference #2.

2: It fails B5. There is no supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

If you would like another editor to review the page, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. --Molestash (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being snide in unbecoming to a wikipedia editor who is supposed to be objective and fair minded. To emphasize my point, the following is the guidance in Wikipedia: Assessing articles"

"Assessments are useful if done right, but are often done wrong. Many articles are given lower quality or importance ratings than they merit based on the criteria. A common mistake is to assess short articles as stub or start class even when there is nothing more to be said about the subject, and longer articles as B (or higher) class even when there is much more to be said."

More follows. Smallchief (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, this article does not meet the quality standards for a "B" article. However, as you may be aware, there is a "C" classification for articles which do not meet the "B" standard but are substantially better than "start." I will certainly submit this article to another editor for review if you do not change your assessment. Smallchief (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, your assertion that reference 2 lacks page numbers is incorrect.Smallchief (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Yes. Even if it passes B1, it will still fail C-class for WPMILHIST because of how the assessment scale works. An article must pas B3, B4, and B5 simultaneously for C. Good luck and please keep up with the good work, it's harder to come by it seems like. --Molestash (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

You removed Wahkare Khety from the military history project, claiming that he has no military connections. But the article describes his military activities:

• "From the Instructions, it is known that Wahkare Khety, in alliance with the nomarchs of Lower Egypt, managed to repel the nomad "Asiatics" who for generations roamed in the Nile Delta. Those nomarchs, although recognizing Wahkare's authority, ruled de facto more or less independently. The expulsion of the Asiatics allowed the establishment of new settlements and defense structures on the northeastern borders"
• "In the south, Wahkare and the faithful nomarch of Asyut Tefibi retook the city of Thinis, previously captured by the Thebans led by Intef II; however, the troops of Herakleopolis sacked the sacred necropolis of Thinis, a serious crime sadly reported by Wahkare himself"

Why are his campaigns not considered of interest? Dimadick (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dima, we have no evidence he's done anything militarily. He may have been ruler when the Asiatics were expelled but its unlikely he was the commander in the field. It's the same reason we don't have every US president listed in WP:MILHIST despite them being commander in chief. If you feel I am incorrect feel free to re add him to to the project. --Molestash (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded this barnstar for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance I could get you to re-check some refs? I forgot to come back and finish them. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All set. B-Class, nice work --Molestash (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wonder if I could get you to look at 2½-ton 6x6 truck, 5-ton's cousin. It took me longer than I expected and I sometime can only ref to sections, not paragraphs. Thank you either way. Sammy D III (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mesh you paragraphs together under each design? As it sits now each line needs a citation because they are split apart. --Molestash (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and advice, I understand what is needed. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

You've downgraded this to C based on References and Citation - specifically what's missing from this list?

Duffy, Christopher (1985). The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great 1660-1789 (2017 ed.). Routledge. p. 35. ISBN 1138924644. Lt-Colonel Kalid Masood Khan (October 16, 2015). "The Strategic Depth Concept". The Nation. Retrieved 4 May 2018. Lynn, John (1999). The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667-1714 (Modern Wars In Perspective). Longman. p. 117. ISBN 0582056292. Afflerbach, Holger (ed), Strachan, Hew (ed) (2012). How Fighting Ends: A History of Surrender. OUP. p. 159. ISBN 0199693625. Thompson, RT (1973). Lothar Franz von Schönborn and the Diplomacy of the Electorate of Mainz:. Springer. p. 157. ISBN 9024713463. Jump up ^ Lesaffer, Randall (February 2016). "Fortress Belgium – The 1715 Barrier Treaty". Oxford Public & International Law. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Nolan, Cathal (2008). Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization. Greenwood. p. 37. ISBN 0313330468. Lesaffer, Randall (February 2016). "Fortress Belgium – The 1715 Barrier Treaty". Oxford Public & International Law. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Nolan, Cathal (2008). Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization. Greenwood. p. 37. ISBN 0313330468. Myers (1917). "Violation of Treaties: Bad Faith, Nonexecution and Disregard". The American Journal of International Law. 11 (4): 799–829 passim. Kubben, Raymond (2011). Regeneration and Hegemony; Franco-Batavian Relations in the Revolutionary Era 1795-1803. Martinus Nijhoff. p. 148. ISBN 9004185585. Ward, Adolphus William (1922). The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, Volume 2 (2011 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 1108040136. Veve, Thomas Dwight (1992). The Duke of Wellington and the British Army of Occupation in France, 1815-1818. Greenwood Press. pp. 93–108. ISBN 0313279411.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about quantity of sources, it's about what needs citations in the article. B-Class articles for MILHIST require a citation at the end of all paragraphs. I added ""citation needed"" tags for you to show what needs to be cited.--Molestash (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'B-Class articles for MILHIST require a citation at the end of all paragraphs.' Can you help me out and tell me where that appears in the Military history#Citations because I'm not seeing it.

'Unless the accuracy of a statement is in significant doubt, it is generally better to start with a request for citations on the article's talk page.' Unless you're disputing Belgian independence, I think that applies.

Yes, I am being bloody-minded because I'm tired of experienced editors making up their own variations, then claiming everyone else is wrong and it is endemic with citing. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'm here to help! See this for the standards. Per B1 A:, "the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and and all direct quotes should be attributed to a source." I do understand the frustration as I too have been bitten by all too many experienced editors. --Molestash (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Hey Molestash

Thanks for the assessment, I tried to fix the points you made, and rather than bothering the project with a re-assessment, I thought I could ask you to look over it again. Please tell me if you find any other problems, I've become "blind" to most of these issues on the page by now. Thanks Skjoldbro (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rated it B-Class now. --Molestash (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you removed the WPMILHIST tag from Overpressure. Since the article is almost exclusively focused on its application to military weapons, that seems odd. What's your reasoning? (Hohum ^@) 20:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Although, I do see the articles on Detonation, Explosion and Poison also don't have the tag, while more military specific applications of those subjects do. (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! This is a phenomenon that does occur with military involvement. Think on a cosmic level like a meteor strike. This article is focused on the math behind it and damages caused by overpressure at certain kilopascals. If this article is to be expanded it should take a turn into the history of who discovered overpressure and stuff similar to that. --Molestash (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I