This is an archive of past discussions with User:Climie.ca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for taking the initiative on this :) I've just added a few bits of my own and sent it off for distribution. How do fancy organising a logo competition? I can't see any other way of getting it done. Announce it here and off-Milhist? Please let me know what you think. --ROGER DAVIEStalk06:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: We've escaped snow so far though there's been loads in the North and Scotland. Strangely, though, none of significance in the Alps yet.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
Following a lengthy discussion, a new section - Personal libraries - has been added to the Logistics Department. The aim is to make sourcing and citation checking easier by sharing information about editors' personal book holdings. If you have half an hour to spare, why add a list of your Milhist reference books?
Sure, but how would we do it? I've never worked with someone on an article before, as normally I like to write it. How have you done it in the past? JonCatalán(Talk)00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If possible, could you wait for the infobox until the article is finished? The most accurate information will only be available after the research is done. Furthermore, I don't think Craig's book is a proper book to use for this article; it's not very accurate, and it's novelistic approach makes it a poor source of information in my opinion (Beevor comes close, but holds some useful scholarly information here and there). To be honest, I rather write the article on my own, and then you can add information omitted, but covered by your sources. I'm a fast writer; it normally takes me less than five days to "complete" an article. JonCatalán(Talk)05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yea, you'd be within liberty to tweak afterwards (although, my only contention is that there aren't major changes to the style of the prose; the prose has been good enough insofar that I've hadn't required a major copyedit in any of my recent FACs). I want to start on Uranus, because it will provide me the background for each subsequent article. My plan is to work on Uranus, then Winter Storm and then Little Saturn, since they took place one after the other. It will make it faster to write the articles. And yes, I'm sure that we can both claim the articles we work on. I can ask on IRC. JonCatalán(Talk)17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw the reduction in numbers coming; one reason I was hesitant to advertise the Wikipedia project too strongly within the community. The school system opted to extend the AP programs down to the 10th grade (ages 14-15). I can't say it's been a failure in that several have risen to the challenge. However, it has taken a huge toll on the confidence and self-esteem of many others. With very few seniors in the class to lead by example; the a significant number of underclassmen have fallen prey to the mob mentality "everyone is failing" so it must be ok. It will be interesting to see how they perform with the numbers greatly reduced and a more dedicated group. Either way; the few that have stepped up have demonstrated that even realitvely young minds can contribute to the Wikipedia Project in a positive way. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have largely re-written the article over the past two days and given you interest in the article I thought you might be interested to see the progress. The intent is to put the article forward for GA in the near future. Suggestions would be appreciated.
--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Climie.ca. You have new messages at Allanon's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
re: Two things
Thanks for your kind message and for your gutsy support during the election! My apologies for the slow response: I took a short wiki-break in an effort to get rid completely of an infection in time for the holidays (says loads about my priorities, huh?). Anyhow, my first love around here is Milhist and assuming Jimbo appoints me I have no intention of letting ArbCom take over my life!
Overwise, it'll be good to get Marion on the road and I'll be delghted to reviewing it once you're through. In the meantime, dude, very happy holidays! --ROGER DAVIEStalk10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Moro River Campaign
Hey Cam. Sorry, I'm editing but I'm under a heavy workload at the moment and I'm only really doing some writing here and there. I'll try and get around to reviewing it in the next few days. A few pointers through. The article needs an Aftermath section, possibly combining the 'Grinds to a Halt' section, and a good copy-edit as well. The lead also needs to be expanded to two or three paragrahs, and the section titles are a bit unencyclopedic to be honest - they need to be a bit more concise. Skinny87 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiCup notice
The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.
This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.
This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.
I have a bit unusual question. I am currently updating an article on Oberst Walter Oesau. He was a Ace of Luftwaffe. I was discussing his background with someone who is writing a book on him. They sent me a Portrait of Oesau they had made on their own. They are willing to give the copyright waiver. Assuming that I get a clearance on image copyright, can we use the portrait in the article ? At this time there is a photo of him by Heinrich Hoffmann. I am not sure I can upload the portrait image without the clarification. All I can tell you is that the portrait is pretty good. Please let me know.Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cam,
I am not sure I'd know the tag for "permission is granted by the author to redistribute and copy this work". The image in question is :File:Walter Oesau Portrait.pngA Portrait of Walter Oesau..
I have applied GNU Free License. Please take a look and let me know the tag. Thanks.
I am sorry, I should have known. Since this is the first time I have a article going through the A class review. Next time I will make sure. My apologies. Did you look at the Portrait's License tag by chance ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Moro River Campaign you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Moro River Campaign for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cam. Take as long as you and Kirrages like/need to address the issues; I'm not exactly a stickler on the "seven day" time limit. If you would like, I can have another look at the article later on tonight or wait until the "factual accuracy" and "broad in coverage" issues have been addressed and go through then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cam. I have now completed a second review on the article, and have left comments on things that need to be fixed on the review page. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cam. I have begun looking through the article again, and have noticed a few things that need references/citations. I'm giving you the heads up here instead of the talk page as I think I should be able to pass the article this time if these issues are addressed. The first paragraph in the "Background" section and last in the "Aftermath" section, also the last sentence in the "Offensive strategy and order of battle" section require citations. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, if the above referencing issues are addressed I'll have no hesitation in passing the article. You and Kirrages should be commended for you efforts! Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This year a bot will be tallying the scores for the tournament. This bot will be run by ST47 and will count edits–at 0.1 points each (major edits only, see below)–and submissions at the scores listed in the tables.
You must submit any work that you manage to promote in each period on your submissions page. Your page is located here. Rules and instructions are here for submitting.
Due to the massive influx of Huggle users, and because this is a content contest rather than an editcountitis extravaganza, minor edits will be scored at only 0.01 points. If you are a Huggle user your edits must be marked as minor or you will be disqualified. If you are unsure, check your contributions.
If you wish to drop out before the tournament begins, please do so as soon as possible, but not later than January 5.
Most importantly, good luck! Happy New Years, Garden. and ayematthew 20
NuclearWarfare reverted your RfA until you answer the "optional" questions or indicate that you aren't going to---eg it is not active right now. As a general rule, the "optional questions" particularly the first three really aren't that optional. If you want to have any chance of passing you should anwer them before going live.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've also archived the vote at 2/0/1 where it was when NW withdrew the nomination. Before going live, take off the archive box and make sure that the !vote is at the 2/0/1... if there are more !votes, particularly supports, it might be seen as vote stacking.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA question followup
To be taken at your leisure, of course:
I liked your answer to Q5 and noticed that you mentioned two very strong personalities when praising FAC. Do you find that FAC is in peril of becoming too bound to powerful leadership? I just mean this in the sense that some organizations live and breathe on vibrant leaders and others seem to have sufficient process control to survive despite mediocre helmsmanship (Rather than suggesting that SG and Raul are involved in a palace coup). I know that MILHIST has both good leadership and a honed sense of process. Do you see a contrast in how FAC works with that? Do the idiosyncracies of the process or the medium demand it? Or is it a fallacy generally to feel that an institution can thrive in the husk of a bureaucracy without the vibrancy of leadership?
Well, I believe Skinny87 is going to look at mine. Nevertheless, I should have another one up shortly and so I'll be glad to swap that one for Windsor, assuming Windsor is still listed (at the going rate, it should be!). Or, I could just do Windsor now and we can write a raincheck for my future GAN. :P JonCatalán(Talk)16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my intrusion, but I spotted your post on The ed17's talk page. Do mind if I also help with Yamato and Musashi? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Climie.ca. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
So I am helping already? That's awesome ;-) I recall reading that the Japanese destroyed a lot of information concerning that Yamato class battleships just prior to the occupation of Japan by Allied forces at the end of WWII, so I expect finding statistics will be a lot harder for the Yamato′s than the Iowa′s, but I like a challenge. I'll do the best I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The Yamato class main article is finally beginning to take shape, and I've finally got the page rewritten and heavily cited. That said, there's one statistic I'm missing a reference for. Would you happen to have any references that mention the cost of the Yamato vessels? Thanks for your help, Cam(Chat)03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this is going to be hard to pin down with any certainty, but I'll look through my books and throw some numbers and cites out there:
The contract for Musashi on April 10, 1938 gave a delivery price of 64.9 million yen- Yoshimura, Battleship Musashi, p. 43.
Answer here [2] says that both ships together cost 235,150,000 yen from this ref:
Kwiatkowska, K.B. and M.Z.Skwiot, "Geneza budowy japonskich panzernikow typu Yamato", Moze, Statki i Okrety, June, 2007.
I would suggest using that number and then explain in the footnotes that Yoshimura stated that Musashi cost only 65 million yen with the ramainder for Yamato. Cla68 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This month saw 14 military history-related articles promoted to featured status, the highest number for a single month since the project's establishment in October 2002. Congratulations all round!
Design competition Editors with design skills urgently needed to design an eyecatching logo for this newsletter. The logo needs to incorporate a bugle motif as well as the newsletter's title, "The Bugle". Fame and honour (a barnstar) guaranteed for the successful design. Submit entries here please.
Who will be the three "2008 Military historians of the Year"? There are 13 candidates so far and the number is rising rapidly. The winning editors will receive the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wikis; and all other nominees the WikiProject barnstar. To nominate editors you admire, or to cast your votes, please visit here!
A new drive has been started to identify the core topics of World War I with the aim of improving their quality before the centenary of the start of World War I in 2014.
I posted this question to everyone at RFA who mentioned working in AIV. I would have asked you, too, but yours will close soon. So I'm posting it here in case you would like to reply at some later time. Gimmetrow22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Q: You say you'll work at WP:AIV. Here's WP:AIV as it looked 21:42, 11 January 2009. Would you block the two IPs listed as user-reported? Why or why not? If so, for how long? (Ignore the bot-reported IPs; those are transcluded and will change)
Neither IP has any deleted contributions. Tthe second IP (the personal attacker) made only one edit, which was obviously before the warning. Does that make any difference? Gimmetrow23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Congrats: Your are officially in! Welcome, first project admin of '09! (incidentally, you may want to add your name to the list of project admins if you haven't done so already, but that's your call :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A slightly belated congratulation Cam, if you have any questions, I am always around. Welcome to the Admin ship, may its sailing be nice and calm! Regards, Woody (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Spencer has had 1 successful "In the news" nomination.
From the Judges
This years WikiCup started off great! It's only the second full week of competition, and we already have a lot of content promoted. We have some very close pools, such as Pool A and J. We also have some pools who have not been very active yet, but hopefully that will start changing in the coming weeks.
Garden and iMatthew have also opened a new pool, the "Judge's Pool" where we are competing against each other and following the same rules as all of you. This pool however, will never have any effect on the actual competition, but you can still check back often to see how we are doing compared to yourself.
That's it for this newsletter edition, everyone. Any questions or comments are always welcome on the WikiCup talk page, or our user talk pages. Until next time, Garden. and iMatthew // talk // 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list.
Current leaders
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (138)
Gary King (86)
Spencer (67)
Pool B
Sceptre (22)
Spittlespat (7)
Greatestrowerever, Malinaccier (6)
Pool C
Candlewicke (60)
Scorpion0422 (24)
Steven Walling (9)
Pool D
NapHit (27)
ThinkBlue (18)
97198 (11)
Pool E
X! (69)
Sasata (10)
LOTRrules (4)
Pool F
Bedford (29)
RyanCross (21)
the_ed17, Howard the Duck (5)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (46)
Skinny87 (16)
What!?Why?Who?, Pedro_João, Ceranthor (2)
Pool H
Juliancolton (133)
Tinucherian (41)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (144)
Theleftorium (121)
Wrestlinglover (15);Pool J
Paxse (78)
Climie.ca (67)
Useight (46)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
Hi Cam, congratulations on passing your RfA! FYI, I'm going to be ignoring any further comments from User:Spinnaker gybe on the WW1 page. They have not made a single edit to any article and appear to be trolling. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that, sometime back, you mentioned that combinedfleet.com had been identified as a reliable source. Would you happen to be able to provide the link for this for me? I have a hunch that it will get asked in the future FAC of the Yamato class, and I want to have that link as assurance that the site is reliable. Cam(Chat)01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
IPs should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Schools are no exception. In fact, per Wikipedia:Block#Duration of blocks, "Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address." From my understanding, consensus is that indefinite blocks to IPs should only be made in extreme circumstances, such as a WP:OFFICE or OTRS actions. In this case, an indefinite block was not appropriate. Even legal threats or death threats don't deserve more than a 1 year block in my experience, and in this case the edits in question were simply run-of-the-mill vandalism. I personally would have given a 31 hour block, and absolutely nothing more than a week. The IP has only been blocked once before, and that was a over a year ago. I would recommend unblocking. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Join in the fun
Hello, Climie.ca. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something.
Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan, Gary King (191)
Spencer (127)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (112)
Sceptre (34)
Spittlespat (9)
Pool C
Candlewicke (182)
Scorpion0422 (72)
Steven Walling (16)
Pool D
97198 (79)
NapHit (29)
ThinkBlue (25)
Pool E
Sasata (91)
X! (69)
Straight Edge PXK (6)
Pool F
Bedford (55)
RyanCross (31)
the_ed17 (24)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (104)
Ceranthor (34)
Skinny87 (17)
Pool H
Juliancolton (230)
Tinucherian (64)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (319)
Theleftorium (196)
J Milburn (65)
Pool J
Climie.ca (101)
Paxse (97)
Useight (81)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Normandy team
Looks like the Normandy team is a complete success :). If Falaise pocket and Totalize are passing the ACR's now, Goodwood remains the single major operation not promoted to A or FA and all of us could focus on it (because it would be quite a difficult task). By the way, i'm overhauling Hill 262 and hope to put it under ACR by the end of the week. Any help is welcome! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
am just slow in writing - working between university assignments. Its getting there :p I just need to finish off a few things regarding the German dispositions etc and then am going to start on the actual battle.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the middle of a two-week break, unlike some people...but if you want help with some of the maritime aspects of the WWI article, feel free to ping - especially sometime this weekend, when I don't work and I don't think that I am doing anything. ;) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked him indefinitely. Just looked at some odd comments and noted that he's only got a few edits, all of them talk pages and seems to know all the policies already. Seems like a great big leg-pulling account saying Mein Kampf is a RS and comparing 1914 Serbia to the Taliban and OBL. I think you should be more cynical with some folks.... There's this guy on the VN War page who never edits and only drones on and one saying that the US didn't lose and nobody answered him luckily, except a few hard-core anti-US guys who did the opposite... No need to reply to him. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Referencing question
Hi Cam, I was wondering if you could help out with a reference. I'm currently copyediting Operation Cobra, and it mentions Operation Atlantic. I added a little info from the Atlantic article and used your refs - I was wondering if you've got any more information on the source of the Copp article you used (Copp, Terry The Approach to Verrières Ridge, Legion Magazine May/June 1999). If you look at the refs section of the Cobra article, you'll see that it needs especially the page numbers and publisher, and the volume info would be good too if possible. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My girlfriend is currently doing a statistical essay on casualty rates in the British Army during WWI in theatres other than the Western Front - specifically the Dardenelles, Egypt, Messoptamia and the like. I know it might be a tad out of your area, but I know you do do WWI history - can you think of any academic books on those areas, or anyone who might know? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ed, I've done that. I have to admit to getting a tad desperate, there doesn't seem to be a lot of academic literature on the British Army anywhere but the Western Front. Skinny87 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Put the Musashi On Hold; it needs some work done to it as I've noted in the review. I noticed you've only got a dozen or so edits on the article, which probably explains why it isn't quite up to your usual excellent quality. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey man. Do you think you'll be able to review Freshman before your trip on the weekend? Have a nice time, by the way. Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
'The References need publication location' - I'm quite flu-y at the moment, so apologies if this is blindingly obvious, but what does this mean? Skinny87 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
(od) Okay, that should be all of them done; lot of books published in London, don'tcha know. Hopefully I've done it all right. Skinny87 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The content is continuing to pile in, it's great! Nothing significant this issue, but we currently have a straw poll going on regarding the point values of featured pictures, sounds, and lists. Garden., iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (254)
Gary King (215)
Spencer (150)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (189)
Sceptre (35)
Spittlespat (10)
Pool C
Candlewicke (250)
Scorpion0422 (146)
Steven Walling (29)
Pool D
97198 (89)
ThinkBlue (37)
NapHit (31)
Pool E
Sasata (140)
X! (105)
Straight Edge PXK (9)
Pool F
Bedford (101)
the_ed17 (40)
RyanCross (32)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (107)
Ceranthor (67)
jj137 (50)
Pool H
Juliancolton (355)
Tinucherian (71)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (462)
Theleftorium (264)
J Milburn (88)
Pool J
Climie.ca (135)
Paxse (134)
Useight (116)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
No worries. I like your re-write of WWI's lead, but I suspect that it would be safer to invite other editors to view and comment on re-writes before they're added. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I will definitely post a notice at the centenary drive page and the WWI talk page. I have also semi-protected my WWI sandbox page to prevent mass vandalism and/or trolling. Cam(Chat)07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt if I'll get the chance unfortunately. The daylight is short (07:40 to 16:30) and I have a busy schedule. But there's the promise of a good dinner afterwards though. --ROGER DAVIEStalk18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar!
Much appreciated.
Iowa class battleship FT push
USS Iowa just passed her FAC. We know have the minimum core articles neede for the FT push. Our focus now needs to be addressing any surviing FAC issues. We also need to ensure that the articles are thouroughly copyeditted and that all exernally cited links are operation before the FT push. I think that if we push hard the nom may be ready to go in a week or two. What are your thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit request
Hello. I see you're listed on the Logistics page as a copyeditor. I hope to nominate M249 for FA status and would be grateful if you could do some copyediting. Thanks.--Pattont/c22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Cam, if I got down on hands and knees, could you look over at General Aircraft Hamilcar and combine my refs please? I managed to do a couple, but when I tried to do some more I somehow managed to wipe half the article when I previewed the page. I'd be very grateful if you could. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, many a time, but somehow it still eludes me; about one time in ten I can get it right.I'm so incompetent with coding at times it's unbelievable. By the way I reverted your tag; I always finish the lead last, but I'm doing ACRs at the moment to take a break, help MILHIST out and shoot for the ACR Review medal at the same time.Skinny87 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem skinny might be facing is if he is editing his referances in MS Word - the speech marks in Word dont match up the wiki and screw up the coding. So you need to redo the speech marks within the actual editing window (i.e. here) for it to work.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Moro River Campaign for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
