Hello Lysandros! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always edit with an edit summary now, thanks. Lysandros 00:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Gligan
What do you mean by "sneaky vandalism"?? I wrote the truth in the article "battle of Maritsa". You know very well that the lands ruled by Valkashin and Uglesha were inhabited mainly by Bulgarians (as they are today). They were of serbian origine, but the army they led consisted mainly by BULGARIANS; so i have written Bulgarian army correctly => this is NOT vandalism.--Gligan 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gligan, for the definition of 'sneaky vandalism', please see Wikipedia:Vandalism (types of vandalism). If i misunderstood this definition, i can apologize for that but, you have edited without edit summary and deleted information (Serbian army, Serbian camp, Serbian king...). Where is the Serbian army in your 'version'? This battle was called "Sırpsındığı/Serbians' coffer" by Turks, and sorry but, an army under a Serbian king is a Serbian army, even if it contains some Bulgarian forces. Please check some valuable sources about this battle, (encyclopedia Britannica and various others...). Regards. Lysandros 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lysandros. Serbian king, i think should be the title used by the king of Serbia, not of Prilep. Valkashin's realm was not Serbia. Why should be his army called serbian, when its king, though of serbian origine was not king of Serbia and the soldiers were ethnic Bulgarians. The serbs inhabited the lands west of the Morava river and north of Kosovo (including it of course); but the lands to the east and to the south were Bulgarian. Stefan Dushan was the first serbian king to conquer Macedonia, till those moment it was constantly Bulgarian, and sometimes Byzantine. The serbs did not even hold it for more than 20 years. So, the right definition should be Bulgarian army of the Serbian feudal lord Valkashin.
In my opinion you know quite well that the victorious write the history. The british and the french always feared Bulgaria and supported its enemies; they won the world wars, they supported the serbs, the greeks and the romanians in their trechorous actions against our country; they said that Macedonia is Serbian. So why should be encyclopedia britannica a valuable sourse??? They were simply trying to prove that Macedonia should remain in yugoslavia.
As far as edit summary is concerned, i do not know how to use it; and wrong information should be deleted... :)--Gligan 11:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you a Serb? You name sounds greek.--Gligan 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now the situation is like; your opinion (and probably Bulgarian sources) Vs the majority of the generally accepted sources ('battle of Maritsa' in Google book search and see the results...), and Turkish sources. What can we do with this...?
My name, (not my real name) is of Greek - Spartan origin. I am not Greek nor Serb, but from a country situated a bit more to the east with larger frontiers...
Greetings, Lysandros. Now, let us draw a conclusion. The different sourses of the time are, of course, one-sided-the Bulgarian, the Serb and the Turk. The Bulgarians usually did not mension that Vulkashin was of serb origin; it was led by Bulgarian feudal lords; the army was 20,000. The serbs did not mention that there were Bulgarians in the army and call it serbian. The Turks made little difference between Bulgarians and serbs (they were both usually called "infidels"); they were new to the Balkans so they did not know that the lands in Macedonia are Bulgarian, they only knew that the enemy commander Vulkashin was of serb origin =>they called this army serbian; they pointed out that the army was 60,000 to use it for propaganda. For the british sourses i mentioned before.
I we think neutral, what remains of it??? First, it is OBVIOUS that Macedonia was inhabited by Bulgarians (they were the ordinary soldiers), the leaders were of serbian origine (the Bulgarians were lead by serbs. 60,000 is very large number, the Byzantine and the Bulgarian Empires rarely gathered so many troops even in their zenith; it would be VERY difficult for two feudal lords to summon such an enormous army, so 20,000 (again very large army for the Balkan standards in the 14th century) is the more realistic number. --Gligan 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really respect your efforts Gligan. You are trying to prove that the Serbian sources are wrong, the Turkish sources are wrong, and the big majority of the western sources (like Britannica) are wrong... This is very difficult to agree. Even if i accept that, others will not.
The Turks distinctively mentioned the presence of the Bulgarians (maybe the larger part) with other forces (Serbians, Hungarians, Bosnians, Wallachians, Moldavians...) in the allied Balkan army, then they knew probably well who is Bulgarian and who is not...
The number of 60,000 or 70,000 men (according the sources not only Turkish) is not unrealistic for an allied army of that time, but if you can cite any serious sources (in English please) to support the number of 20,000 we can include it in the battlebox. Lysandros 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I hope you will agree with the last change I made in the article. I also must agree that may be the right term is "allied Balkan army" but definetely NOT serbian. Bulgarian army is also exaggerated. Both Bulgaria and Serbia officialy did not participate.
It is good that you have so deep knowledge of medieval history. I only cannot understand why are exactly the british (and perhaps american) sourses so valuable for you...:):):)--Gligan 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Kosovo
Sorry, I haven't looked carefully who was editing what. I was more careful now. Nikola 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
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 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
slm Lysandros, savasin sonucunu update ettim, haber vermek icin yaziyorum. ben de osmanli zaferi oldugunu dusunuyorum ama consensus olmadikca bunu yazmak dogru olmaz:( Ati7 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selam Ati7, maybe you know already, but i am not the person who changed the 'result' section in the battlebox (see user 76.212.129.244). And... if this article supports the 'inconclusive' point of view, the section should simply contain one of these two words; indecisive or inconclusive instead of a whole 'paragraph'. Lysandros 11:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indecisive or inconclusive , I like that. Let's put this into the discussion section. Sorry, I didn't realize it was someone else Ati7 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Slankamen
Casualty figures and strengths are all from the same source. See Note 1. Cheers Raymond Palmer 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lysandros. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I saw today some anons made some major additions to the article. Can you please check their accuracy when you have the time? Regards.--DoktorGonzo 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doctor Gonzo. I tried to check the addition's accuracy with my rather limited history knowledge. There is nothing fundamentally illogical in here to me, but... there is also some problems. First of all, on top, it says "Inserts from 'The longest days of 1389 and the battle of Kosovo' with permission." (this should be mentioned in 'notes', not in the article itself by the way). I checked this 'source' in Google and found nothing. If it really exists, it's possibly a Serbian source. I hope that 'anon' who edits without edit summary, says the truth and this is not a copyright violation. It also contains some spelling and link errors.
I do not think a revert it's a good idea for this situation, because the article initially lacked a real background section (in a political sense). Then i suggest to contact the editor and ask him more details about his source and to provide edit summaries. We should also add tags for the claims like troop numbers, and fix spelling & link errors. Lysandros 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source for Battle of Rovine
Hi. I've noticed your interest in this battle, but also in several medieval battles from Balkans. I wonder if you have access to a primary source called "The life of Despot Stefan Lazarević" which was written in early 1430s by Constantine the Philosopher (Konstantin Kostenechki). I have scholarship addressing this primary source, but the text could make me understand better the events and hopefully get that article moving. A version in English/French/Italian/German would be preferable for me, but if you have it in any other language I'd appreciate if you can provide a translation, as well. Thank you in advance, Daizus 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really sorry, i do not have access to this source, but if i can find any Turkish/Ottoman source(s) for this battle i will send you a translation. Lysandros 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine-Seljuk wars
Thanks for the check up. I know no one owns an article in Wikipedia, but its a small boost of pride for me to have someone such as yourself rank it as B grade. Yes your efforts do not go un-noticed my friend!Tourskin 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De nada amigo. Lysandros 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nesting WikiProjects
Hi! I just noticed your edit here (convenient, actually, I'd been trying to figure out what that code was), and went trying to add it to Talk:Crusade of Varna and Talk:Peace of Szeged, but it seems the Serbia and Bulgaria banners won't minimze. Am I doing it wrong, or is there some sort of missing code within the banners themselves? How does it get fixed? -Bbik 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i think that these templates simply don't support this 'nesting' technic. Sorry, i don't know how to fix it. Lysandros 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for that "great" plan. Guess I'll go post to the two projects to see if they can figure it out. Thanks anyhow, Bbik 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siege of Vienna
Thanks for pointing that one out for me. Quite Frankly I was surprised at first that there wasn't such an article but you have pointed it out to me so thanks again. Oh yeah, thanks for grading the Byzantine-Ottoman wars too. I'll delete the one I made and ad any new info I had researched and change the campaign boxes of Ottoman-Habsburg wars. Regards, Tourskin 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for so many thanks for so little 'helps'.. Lysandros 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well...it is a sad day when people tire of thank yous. lol. But thanks anyway! (annoyed yet? lol!)Tourskin 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Austro-Ottoman war
Thanks for pointing those out. Let me know what your intentions are regarding these articles, if theres going to be any merging or anything. Tourskin 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
You are being awarded this barnstar in recognition of your fine work at Ottoman warfare-related topics. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dorylaeum
Of course, no need to ask me! To match most other articles though, I would suggest "Battle of Dorylaeum (1147)" rather than "Second battle of". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military history of the Ottoman Empire Portal
Hi Fayssal. How can i add new selected articles to the Military history of the Ottoman Empire Portal? I want to update it if possible.. Lysandros (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lysandros. Please click here and inside the editing box you'll find 5 subpages' templates which link to the different selected articles (there are 5 and you can have more if you want). What you have to do is depends on what you want (whether add other articles or replace the 5 w/ new ones). If you need further help, please let me know. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All selected articles follow a random rotative display mode. Try refreshing the portal and you'll get everytime a different selected article. I've just added the "Byzantine-Ottoman wars" article to the selected ones. Now we got 6 in total. You can remove/add or whatever you want to do. Regards. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lysandros. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history for the third time. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks
Milhist Coordinator election
Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russian-Circassian War
Battle of Maritsa mi Sirp Sindigi mi degil mi?
Sayin Lysandros: Ozur dilerim gonderdiginiz mesaja yanit veremedigim icin. Kabahat mi buyuk ozur mu bilemiyorum. Ancak nereye nasil yanit yazacagimi bilemedim ve bunu sizden Fransizca serzenisli ileti aldigim icin size ait Talk denilen kisma yaziyorum. Halbuki ilk yazdigim ileti Ingilizce Wikipedia'da Battle of Maritsa konusunda idi. Bu iletide sizi, gerekmiyecek kadar, fazla tenkitte bulunmusum; ozur dilerim. Sizin gonderdiginiz ilk aciklamanizda da cok hakli oldugunuzu gormustum; ama ayni ozurle cevap verememistim. Bu Ingilizce Battle of Maritsa maddesi benim canimi cok sikti. Boyle bir savas var mi? Turk tarihlerinde bulamadim; Sirp Sindigi ise bakabildigim (Ingilizce, Turkce, Italyanca) Vikipedia'larinda yok. Neden? Bunun konuya ben Bizans Imparatorlari, Sultan Orhan ve I. Murad hakkinda yazdigim/degistirdigim maddeler dolayisiyla geldim. Ikinci ana dilim olarak kabul ettigim Ingilizce icin maddenin icerigi (en iyi yorumla) hic tatmin edici olmadi benim icin. Ne yazik ki Ingilizce Vikipedi 1911 Britanika Ansiklopedisi'nden arta kalan; Balkan milliyetcilerinin ve koyu Hristiyanlik yanlilarinin gayretleriyle gittikce daha da kotulesen ve en iyi goruslu ifadeyle tarafsiz olmayan maddelerle dolmus. Tarihe cok ilgisi olan bir Turk asilli (45 yili geckin Ingilterede oturan emekli akademik) bir kisi olarak bu cesit tarafli, yanli, acik soylemek gerekirse iki yuzlu, tarihi maskara yapan maddelere alerjim devamli artmakta. Iletinizde soylemis oldugunuz gibi bunlara inceden inceye reaksiyon gostermek cok zor ve ince reaksiyon ne yazik ki herkes tarafindan (ben dahil) yanlis anlasiliyor. Acaba daha sert, ama bir tarafsiz ilim gorusunden ayrilmadan, reaksiyon gostermek imkani var mi? Bilemiyorum. Benim yillarca tecrubeme gore yanli kisilere ince yanit degil daha robust bir reaksiyon gostermek daha verimli bir sonuc ortaya cikartmakta. Ama bu tutum Vikipedia icin uygun mu, degil mi? Iktisatcilar iki elli kisiler olarak tarif edilirlerdi; devamli sorunlara ve incelemelere on one hand and on the other hand diye yanita giristikleri icin. Iki elli tarihci olmak gerekmiyor mu? Tekrar yanitimin gec kaldigi icin ozurlerimle. Iyi calismalar ve iyi gunler dilerim. Noyder (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Chaldiran
Why did you delete the changes I made in the Battle of Chaldiran? The number of soldiers of the Safavids aren't even based upon sources as it looks now. A page number is missing in Savory's work. And I actually own his book and can't find any place where it says that Shah Ismail had 80.000 soldiers!! I made some changings, and I used reliable sources. Even the Ottoman sources claim that Shah Ismail had only 40.000 men. It is highly unprobable that Shah Ismail could have had more than 40.000, since his country was dominated by Shafi'i Sunnis, and Ismail himself was a Shi'a who gained support from heterodox Shi'ite groups from Anatolia! None of the Safavid wars before Chaldiran were fought with that many soldiers. And if you noticed, I even used Roger Savory as a source in my numbers.(Xizilbash (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Xizilbash. I reverted your edit because you deleted a reliable source: Keegan & Wheatcroft, Who's Who in Military History, Routledge, 1996. p. 268 "In 1515 Selim marched east with some 60,000 men; a proportion of these were skilled Janissaries, certainly the best infantry in Asia, and the sipahis, equally well-trained and disciplined cavalry. [...] The Azerbaijanian army, under Shah Ismail, was almost entirely composed of Turcoman tribal levies, a courageous but ill-disciplined cavalry army. Slightly inferior in numbers to the Turks, their charges broke against the Janissaries, who had taken up fixed positions behind rudimentary field works." Regards. Lysandros (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your interest in this battle and I would like to review the battle's outcome. I saw the page talk and I think there are sustainable arguments for a "tactical Wallachian victory" because there are several neutral sources that support this conclusion: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]In short, initially Mircea repelled the Ottomans, but thereafter he decided to withdraw to preserve his forces. I think the "indecisive" character come from the fact that the Ottomans, after the initial failure, continued the offensive. Therefore the final outcome was not a conquest but a de facto Ottoman suzerainty. Please let me know about your opinion. Thanks. Aleodor (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aleador. The problem is that besides the sources supporting an indecisive result (tactical or strategical) mentioned on talk page, there is also some sources indicating an Ottoman victory: [5]; [6]; and more importantly D. I. Mureşan's well detailled and referenced study suggesting a "Tactical pyrrhic Ottoman victory". For me the outcome is simply 'disputed'. But if you want to change it to 'Wallachian victory' i will not object. Regards. Lysandros (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be useful to cite also the study of D.I. Muresan. I don't have it. Can you give a link or a reference? Also, regarding the battle's outcome, I would say there are many similarities with the Battle of Calugareni. Aleodor (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the Ottoman chroniclers, between the two armies finally began a «great battle» near the river Argeş[47], with heavy casualties on both sides. However the Romanians didn't give up. During the night, the corpses of the fallen Ottoman soldiers were chucked into the river, creating the next day to Mircea the impression that the Ottoman army was still intact. He decided then to withdraw.[48]"
"This camp, defended by the personal guard of the Sultan composed of janissaries, was the impregnable point of the Ottoman defense, in the much difficult moments of a battle. Applied justly from the next year, in the battle of Nicopolis (1396), this tactical innovation became the fundamental element of the Ottoman art of war until the XVIII century. That is this innovation which, despite of the determined opposition of Mircea's army, testify the tactical victory that the Sultan won in the end of this battle. The army of Mircea I, sustaining heavy casualties, and in the impossibility to break the defense of Sultan's camp, was finally obliged to withdraw. However, if this result for Bayezid was a victory, it was a «Pyrrhic» one[51]."
Thank you for link and for translation (anyway I understand French quite well, is close to Romanian). I will include this POV on the page. Aleodor (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now we can put away the "disputed" tag, what do you think? Aleodor (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should improve the article a bit more before removing the template, there is still loads of unverified claims/[citation needed] tags in it. Lysandros (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military history Coordinator Elections
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems that some people truly care about the future of the WikiProject Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord OliverThe Olive Branch 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (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]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
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) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
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.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
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]
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
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) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"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.