User talk:Petercorless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you!
Because of your support, I was elected Assistant Coordinator of the Wikipedia Military History Project in February 2007.


Contents

[edit] Battle of Jilib

Nice teamwork! I was working on the article at the same time. --Petercorless 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and thanks moved

Folks, I moved your thanks and praise to a different page:

Please feel free to drop off further attaboys yonder. Very gratefully yours... --Petercorless

[edit] Maps

You should change to War in Somalia 2006 on your battles maps, now. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, yet I maintain the war is still primarily a civil war, fought between the ICU, the TFG, Puntland, and Galmudug, etc., with the foreign intervention of Ethiopia (and others). The media still refer to it as a civil war as well, such as this Dec 24, 2006 reference in the Boston Globe: The surrogate war in Somalia --Petercorless 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ip address

Hi, Peter. If you want to notify someone about troublesome edits, you can post a message at WP:ANI. You'll get a better response than by adding the information as an article. Joyous! | Talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr... thanks. The instructions need to be cleaned up and explained better. I did what I was instructed to do and hit the button. It created its own new page. I didn't understand what I was supposed to do differently. Thanks, and let me know what I need to do now. --Petercorless 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

Hi Petercorless, first of, you're doing some amazing work on Wikipedia, thank you! However, it would be very helpful if you considered use of guidelines on citing sources included in WP:CITE. It's not compulsory but sources without retrieved on, author, date of publishing, etc. are generally considered invalid. F.e., if the your articles are to be considered for WP:FAC someone will have to add all the information you omitted, which will be much more difficult to do. Please consider using source citation templates; see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources. Also consider providing edit summaries on your edits as it's helpful for other editors and may be use preview more often than submit as you are flooding wikipedia' database with edits often just one-three minutes one from another. Thank you.--Pethr 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Yes. Since the "urgency" of the Somalia war is winding down, I can take more time to read through the Wiki guidelines and put in the more formal information for references. I've been doing it on a few articles, but I had not been all-too-thorough yet. On the flip side, I am already going in at some places cleaning up those even-more glib links and poorly-formed external refs by others left long before me. As far as using "preview" -- I do. However, there are a number of technical issues I've been having, including losing sessions (particularly bad today), which require me to save early and often. Otherwise, the update gets "lost" when I try to submit it. I've also found a lot of my updates are iterative as I swap data around from section to section. There's just no other way to do that than a few submissions at a go. I'll try to do better with the change notes. --Petercorless 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. Try hitting back buttom in your browser if your session is aborted or if you receive some kind of error from the server. It works for me in Safari/Firefox without exception. Hope it helps.--Pethr 05:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Good tip, which I did try, and it didn't work. Restarting the browser also did not seem to clear it up. However, by this evening, I'm back to mostly normal. --Petercorless 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly is happening? What error are you seeing? It's unusual to say the least, modern browsers remember those things. I assume you're a mac user, I like using simple apps such as TextEdit for editing Wikipedia, it adds one copy and paste to the process but it can be more comfortable especially if you have enough screen real estate to accommodate browser and editor side by side.--Pethr 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be editing, and suddenly I was unable to save. It would tell me I had lost my session. Going back and trying to re-submit would tell me I needed to log in again. Have to log out, then log in again, then go back to the page I was editing. I'd also have to copy the text buffer of the article, and paste it once I got back in and ready to edit. It was not a good time. It happened about 20 times today. It finally cleared up a few hours ago. --Petercorless 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that your problem is descibed in Help:Logging in#Log in problems but I'd double check cookies settings (usually in privacy tab in prefs) first. External text editor also might help (as you don't lose your changes when the session ends unexpectedly. Hope you will solve this!--Pethr 05:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: War in Somalia

I never said they weren't involved. I merely said the source provided next to their listing under 'combatants' makes no such claim. It states merely that the US gives 'tacit approval' to Ethiopia's military support for the TFG. Thus, it is wholly inaccurate and mis-representative to use it as a reference claiming the US is a 'combatant'. Further, if are not combatants, as you readily admit, why would they be listed under the 'combatants' section of the campaign box? —Aiden 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the reference I made, which shows the USN is indeed patrolling off the coast, and has committed to trapping escaping Jihadists. I mentioned they were on "Maritime Patrol," a form of combat support, though they are not direct combatants in the land combat. --Petercorless 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed

To say that his successor is the incumbent is false; he is the incumbent — he doesn't have a successor. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh... thanks. I didn't write that. And I agree. --Petercorless 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, of course you didn't — I misread the History. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a worry. It's taken care of. --Petercorless 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African military history

Would you be interested in joining the African military history task force? Wandalstouring 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Petercorless 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image lincensing

Hello, you should probably visit Commons and put licensing tags to your images, they're in danger of deletion. Conscious 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh!! I thought I did! --Petercorless 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Images

Hi Peter, I created commons:Category:Somali Civil War maps and placed your maps, as well as those created by others, there. I noticed that in one case you had noted on a talk that an image had been superceded by an updated upload. When you have the time, it would be helpful of using the "other versions" field to clarify both the "previous" and "succeeding" maps for the images, so users can step through the maps without searching the entire category. Cheers, BanyanTree 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was thinking of doing that just the other day but got sleepy! I took the old images and marked them with "badname" and also filled out the succeeding maps field. I also took out the Somali Civil War category field so that they would not clutter up the gallery. Yes, it would be confusing to someone to see the others, which I consider "deprecated" like old versions of software. --Petercorless 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle Marrach

  • Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion notice(s)
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. JuJube 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

    • You have recently re-created the article Castle Marrach, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. JuJube 11:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Williams

Hello, can you move your current article to Bruce Williams (Royal Navy). It is to follow the policy on disambiguation. Thank you, --Janarius 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Willdo. I had already created the redirect under that. I'll flip-flop it. --Petercorless 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Petercorless 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galmudug

Galmudug isn't a civil war faction or a country so much as it's a state, like a USA state. Maybe there's a better template we can use? Galmudug's ambition, for instance, isn't to overthrow an authority or independence, but rather a regional administration.--Ingoman 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a "state" but it's not a country with its own currency, etc. I gave it the same sort of Infobox we're using for the ICU and other Somali Civil War factions. It is certainly not as well-organized as Puntland or Somaliland, and in fact, we've heard no news of it since the December battles. It is far more like a faction which declared itself like a state, such as Southwestern Somalia or the Juba Valley Alliance. --Petercorless 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Peter, great work on the Somali articles! How do you know so much about Somalia (I ask b/c aren't you an author on role playing games)? Anyways, keep up the good work!!! Cheers - - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks greatly! Besides the roleplaying games I have worked on, I work on a number of other games which are more historical, political and military. I came in "sideways" to the Somalia project. My other focus has been on the west Balkans (former Yugoslavia). --Petercorless 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree your a good contributor please continue the fine work! RoboRanks 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Danke! I'm back after I took a week off after a lot of intense wikifying. --Petercorless 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, Peter. Impressive. I thought I'd find you at USMA or CentCom, not in computer games.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq and WoT

As someone who has shown themselves to be objective in articles on war, I invite you to participate in discussion on the topic of the relationship between the Iraq War and the US-led War on Terrorism campaign at this location. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. What an edit war! --Petercorless 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Finfinne

Peter, you seem to have some interest/expertise in Somalia, which I lack. Can you take a look at these edits? I reviewed the changes, and as far as I can tell, all of this person's edits either introduced errors into cited figures, or removed citations entirely; I've reverted all of his recent edits. I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish, but this seems to be an ongoing pattern. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks greatly. Yes, he seems to be simply screwing with numbers, as many people have done with many articles. It's annoying, but you are to be commended for keeping sanity. --Petercorless 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, just noticed he was blocked. It's a shame when people try to be obtuse. --Petercorless 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when I reverted the first batch of changes, I noticed that his talk page was already cluttered with similar warnings, so I sent him a final warning, with a links to prove to him that he had vandalized cited figures. He continued making the same sort of edits, so I reported him to WP:AIV. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the subject, so I have no way to tell if he's ever made any legitimate edits, so I only reported him for vandalism (i.e. temporary block) as opposed to a vandalism-only account (permanent block). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The powerful state of Puntland

Good catch, man. --Whiskey Pete, 00:43 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Danke! The thing is that in relative terms of Somali politics, it is somewhat powerful. Also, thank you for the catches you have been making in many of the related articles. --Petercorless 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somalia

Thanks, that was a pleasant surprise! I have to say, though, I'm baffled as to what that person (User talk:Finfinne, User talk:Eastafrica institute) is up to. I hesitate to call it simple vandalism...there seems to be a method to his madness; I just can't figure it out. I've wondered if possibly his English is so limited that he's not able to communicate well on talk pages, but if that's the case, he really shouldn't be editing articles on the English Wikipedia in the first place. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Most welcome! Yes. There often seems to be a method to many folk's insertions. I also try to give folks a chance to explain their actions, and invite discussion on the Talk pages. However, I have seen the Somali pages get very contentious regarding tribal ethnicity and I watch quite a bit of hijacking of the articles because of deep-seated ethnic and political agendas. Claims of condemnation of other factional leaders as "war criminals" or the apologetic whitewashing of similar pasts. When I saw these maps and entire clans were removed, I had an immediate concern there was some revisionism going on. --Petercorless 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, at this point I feel little of my sanity is left. I deleted the images from User:Eastafrica institute and User:Sanaagian, who I also blocked. I need to go back to Sanaagian and see if he is a sockpuppet and if so of who. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually relieved to find straightforward POV edits like this one; at least that's vandalism that I understand! But that business of repeatedly deleting the citations from the opening paragraph while leaving the text more or less intact just confuses me. And edits that just involve the addition, deletion, or changes to huge lists of mostly redlinked names leaves me at a complete loss. Without any context to go by, I have to let it go and hope for the best. I'm just glad you're keeping an eye on those articles to sanity-check the bizarre edits. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am also concerned when there are long lists of undocumented additions. Some of them are based on other article sources on Wikipedia, but some, such as a recent addition of a General of the 1st Division of the new TFG army made me scratch my head. The only reference to that name I could find on Google that was similar is a 1997 track star from Somalia. Could it be the same person? A different person with the same name? I have no context. However, when I see "Tony Blair" listed as a Somali member of the ICU, even I smile at the baldfaced attempts of vandals. Nice try, but... Revert! --Petercorless 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darod

Can you look at this and this, plus the newly created Sheikh Abdirahmaan bin Ismaaciil Jabarti. I can't seem to find any solid references to him under that name and even looking for the older version from the Darod article isn't that great either. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. Yes, it is problematic. I just left comments on Talk:Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti. --Petercorless 08:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, just moved it to Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti --Petercorless 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thnaks. That seems to have a little better result in google.

[edit] Semi-Protect "Somali clan"

Thanks for that as well. It will help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : PRM

Unsalted PRM, now redirected to Popular Resistance Movement in the Land of the Two Migrations. I've got no objections on redirects/disamb so long they have not gone through redirects for deletion. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, United States Africa Command, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On February 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Africa Command, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Woot!!! --Petercorless 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing "operations"

The category guideline actually calls for all combat operations to be placed into the "Battles ..." categories (which may be thought of as "Battles and combat operations..."; but that name would be needlessly long, I think, to actually rename them). Trying to do othewise is simply too confusing, since a "battle" in the modern sense may encompass an entire campaign (e.g. Battle of Gallipoli, Battle of France, etc.), while an "operation" may be quite small.

Hope that helps explain things! Kirill Lokshin 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "battle." Stop changing it to a battle. It's an ongoing operation, mostly non-combat-oriented. --Petercorless 07:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's the question: is it a combat operation or not?
  • If it is, then the category rules call for it to be placed in the "battle" category, regardless of whether it actually has "battle" in the title, is an entire campaign, etc.
  • If it is not, then it should be under Category:Non-combat military operations.
In other words: I'm not arguing that it is a battle; merely that if it's a combat operation, it gets placed in the same category as battles do. Kirill Lokshin 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your mode of thinking is rather narrow-minded. Two (2) military strikes have occurred in the theatre of operations defined under OEF-HOA. A number of other Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) have also occurred, such as anti-piracy interdictions. There have also been numerous civil-military operations and humanitarian missions. So the answer is that it is both a combat operation and a non-military operation. However, it's neither a "battle" nor a "war." I'm not one given to simply pigeon-hole article because guidelines are that -- guidelines. They are not to be used to shoe-horn or misinterpret truth. --Petercorless 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is this primarily an issue of terminology, or of characterizing the operation as a combat one? In other words, would it be acceptable to place the article in a combat operation category that didn't necessarily label it a battle (e.g. placing the article in both Category:Non-combat military operations involving the United States and Category:Battles and combat operations involving the United States)?
(The background: given that this issue has come up before, WP:MILHIST is now planning a set of renamings of the form "Battles involving X" → "Battles and combat operations involving X", to avoid having to argue over whether something is a "battle" or not; and I'm wondering if that will resolve this particular issue or not.) Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be content to put it under both Category:Military operations involving the United States and Category:Non-combat military operations involving the United States, since though there were two (2) combat air strikes, the vast majority of OEF-HOA's activities have been MOOTW. So both of those categories are true of OEF-HOA. Just don't put it under a "battle" or a "war" since it is neither of those. I'm not sure I like the wierd complex renaming "Battles and combat operations involving X". There are battles. There are military campaigns. There are wars. What is lacking in your heirarchy is a "campaign" (Category:Military_campaigns) which is a series of battles in an overall war. Many operations are limited to a single battle. Some operations are related to an overall campaign. Some operations comprise an entire war. Other operations are not a battle, nor a campaign, nor a war. So... It depends. If I had the choice of "battle," "campaign" or "war," the closest analogy OEF-HOA would relate to would be a "campaign." Sans "campaign," leave it simply as an "operation", both military and non-military. --Petercorless 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties unrelated to OEF-HOA

And, incidentally, if you're arguing that it's a non-combat operation, you might want to check whether the casualty counts in the infobox are actually related to it; having 2,500+ casualties almost certainly qualifies it as a "combat operation" that the U.S. is involved in (even if the U.S. isn't responsible for most of them). Kirill Lokshin 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have argued that the "casualties" listed on the OEF-HOA page (carried over from CJTF-HOA) are an utter misattribution, since they are a "double-dipping" of the casualties listed under the Second Battle of Mogadishu and the Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006). Nothing that happened in Somalia, aside from the two U.S. airstrikes, have anything to do with OEF-HOA on an official basis. Hence, I have argued strenuously in the past to remove those casualty figures. --Petercorless 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WP:Biography

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Mocko13 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your insights

into making the Battle of Cieneguilla a better article. I was not really looking for a critique of the article, or lack of one - if someone does not like it they are free to delete it - rather I was using it as an entry point for getting your opinion as to where the edges of original research might be and also your thoughts on the archeologist issue. I appreciate your time and energy in collecting those web sites and for responding to my questions. Carptrash 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most welcome! Once a subject comes up to my attention, I tend to get interested. I think it would make a good article. As for the "original research," you know the answer to that already. :) --Petercorless 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: L33ter/XCalibre

Well, there's no policy against having a signature different from one's actual username—indeed, a great many users do just that—so it's not a problem in of itself.

As far as the other stuff, we'll consider it if/when it actually makes a difference. Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tablighi Jama'at

I have lost track of the excision which you talked about on my userpage. I see that a lot of discussion has taken place after that so I think the issue was discussed. Please leave comments on my Talk page rather than my main userpage which I don't monitor. Thanks. --Nkv 09:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Cieneguilla

I have to give you a big thumbs-up also! Nice job. --Petercorless 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks much for the vote!

I was grateful to see your vote for me. Regardless of who gets appointed as a MilHist AC, I look forward to working with you over the coming year. Rock on! --Petercorless 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was astonished when i found out that i hadn't voted for you before. I thought i had done it before! Working w/ you is my pleasure as well. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. The list of candidates is strong. I'm pleased to be near the top 7. Even if I don't get in, I'm quite happy to support all those who are appointed. Best of luck! --Petercorless 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh War

Hey Peter, so what becomes of the article? Most of the voters have voiced support for the article so....Their's some minor issues on the NK War talk page regarding the article's sources but I believe we've gone over it several times over. If you can just input your opinion on both issues (FAC candidacy and sources on Talk Page), it would be much appreciated. Good job on your appointment, regards --MarshallBagramyan 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Just reading over the list of supports and oppositions, there is no clear consensus. However, some of those oppositions seemed partisan to me, and others seemed out of date by the end of the debate and the revisions the article went through. Unfortunately, that might fail it for FA status based upon instability. But let's see what others say. --Petercorless 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L33ter

He's violated 3RR on the Sanaag article. I've warned him but it was a few hours ago. Also because I am involved in it I will not block him. SO you may need to report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True, he's violated 3RR, but he had his reasons, trying to hold to what he considered was true and factual. Rather than simply see him banned, I'd like to engage him for the good. However, after my latest additions, which show the Somaliland division more accurately (10 districts, six of which graded "A" through "C" were involved in the 2005 elections), if he continues to simply blank the section, we can escalate matters. I'd prefer to battle over who has the best citations than simply win by fiat of getting him ousted. But yes, simply reverting excisions is no fun. --Petercorless 11:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK but the only thing is your edits have references. His have none on the article page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite true. He's simply blanking the section. Not good form. Let's give him some time to read over what I added tonight. If we continue to get blanked sections, we can escalate. Right now, I have to say that the additional pressure to prove my point through citations actually has taught me a bit more about the area. But his methods of editorial contribution do leave much to be desired. --Petercorless 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FA status for Nagorno-Karabakh War

It's up to the featured article director, really; in the end, he's the one that will make the call. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somali diaspora

This is a copy and paste of the section from Somali people. Not sure if it's a good or bad thing yet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Hey Peter, thank you for the award. Your comments on the NK War Talk page could not have been said any better. Your mediating and contribution during its FAC was excellent and I am very grateful for the time you spent helping to improve the article's quality. Thank you, --MarshallBagramyan 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that you have been elected as one of the Military history WikiProject's Assistant Coordinators. Congratulations!

To start with your coordinator work, please visit this page and familiarize yourself with the material gathered there; it's also a good idea to place the page on your watchlist, as it's the main place where discussion among the coordinators takes place.

Thanks again for offering to take up this responsibility, and congratulations on your success! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Assistant Coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject
Assistant Coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject

Congrats on your election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly Tom! --Petercorless 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello Peter. Congratulations and thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Barnstar!

My first! (And hopefully not my last!!) I didn't even know about them before. I am glad you liked my work, and I hope to improve it and do much more. Shoreranger 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! --Petercorless 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordintors please drop by

The old coordinators (Kirill, Dryzen and me) decided to established a kind of regular meeting of the coordinators. The intention is to exchange information, opinions and coordinate our work. The current meeting is here. Wandalstouring 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign categories

You might want to drop by this discussion (seeing as you were the person who was responsible for much of the original drafting and all that). ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allies of WW2

I have added mention of France in 1939-40. The UN certainly existed during WW2; the security council did not. We need a reference for France in 1944-45, not for something that happened in 1946. Grant | Talk 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat; a reference for 1944/45 please. If we are talking about 1946 we may as well be talking about 2006. Grant | Talk 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Potsdam Conference is 1945. --Petercorless 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have the flu at the moment, so I'm somehwat terser than I would be otherwise. Nevertheless, as I've worked on Allies of WW2 for a couple of years now, I feel somewhat protective of it. Can we please discuss major changes before you implement them? Grant | Talk 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely. You also have my sympathies for your illness. I will in return ask for you to not be so defensive over articles. Recall that no one "owns" Wikipedia articles. --Petercorless 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello Petercorless. Congrats and 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. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any assistance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

Yup, I'd been meaning to get to that for awhile, and your edit reminded me.  :) BTW, I've submitted a formal GA nomination for the article, though I haven't heard anything back yet. After the article gets a bit longer though, I intend to go for FA. So if you see anything else you'd like to add, by all means, have at it! --Elonka 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just thinking, that if we could get this article revved up in time, it would be the perfect choice for the main page FA on October 13, 2007, since that would be the 700-year anniversary of Philip's arrests of all the French Templars. Do you think that's a reasonable target date? --Elonka 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Gabon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you added Pacific War to the mediation case - from a quick look over there I couldn't immediately see a directly related dispute, so I'm not sure that it's entirely appropriate to merge them together. Certainly, the participants do look similar, and the discussion is on a similar topic, but I'm not sure they're similar enough to try to handle in the same case. I'd appreciate if you could maybe explain your reasoning a little more to help me understand why you made the addition. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somalia-related updates

Several articles should be updated in wake of new developments: African Union Mission to Somalia, 2007 timeline of the War in Somalia, Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present). I begun some minimal work but your help would be appreciated. Thank you --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/User_talk%7EPetercorless_a22d.html"