This user may have left Wikipedia. Revcasy has not edited Wikipedia since 9 October 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hello, your opinion was very valuable in the Treaty of San Stefano map discussions and ultimately led to the dispute's resolution, at least for the time being. There is a similar dispute at Eastern Rumelia which involves pretty much the same editors and the same four ethnographic maps, in addition to a political map of Bulgaria. Could you please look into this one and provide your input? It would be much appreciated. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You rated the Kingdom of Essex as start class. Looking at the notes on the scale, I see that this means that provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised and that the article also needs substantial improvements in content and organisation.
It would be helpful if you could identify where more references to reliable sources are needed; what improvements in content you would like to see and how the article organisation could be improved. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is, "At least one citation per paragraph." But this assumes that the citation comes at the end of the paragraph. The last two paragraphs in the "History" subsection have no citations at all, nor does the list of kings, and the "Subsequent history" section in between, consisting of one paragraph, has the same citation twice in a row, which could be combined. The last half of the paragraph is uncited. All of the citations should have page numbers, or in the case of Bede, chapters at least. See WP:Verify. Revcasy (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, our assessment process is raring for moving out, and just needs a little bit of help from you. First and foremost, our Quality and Importance scales need to be completed per consensus, please check them out at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglo-Saxon_Kingdoms/Assessment and comment. Next, we have, as of my most recent assessments, 1122 articles that have not been assessed. All I ask is that each and every one of us assess ~10 articles each day you get on Wikipedia to speed up the process and let us really know what we have in our scope. Remember, we have Category, Template, Redirect and Disambiguation classes along with our more traditional stub through FA ratings, please use all of them and look for pages which fall within our scope. Thanks for all the help, Sadads (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cannot seem to find a way to build consensus on the third lead paragraph of State church of the Roman Empire with Medeis I have filed a request for arbitration here. I have not listed you as a party since I did not want to drag anybody else into it unwillingly. But please feel free to join this discussion if you like.
RE: "BigK Hex, you seem to be reacting to specific users who happen to have been vocal early in this discussion."
Indeed I am. It's good to know that I may well be wrong. Unfortunately the vocal representatives of the "oppose" position are explicit that they are not interested in helping with the whole finding-of-consensus matter at the present moment. In any case, you mentioned your support for some sort of compromise. I didn't find exactly what you were referring to. Could you point me in the right direction, please? BigK HeX (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments at user talk:Jimbo. I don't normally comment on other users talk pages about non-article things, but someone needs to buy you a beer. Thankyou for being able to see both sides of the discussion simultaneously. There are certainly users on both sides who do not. What we need are quantitative numbers from the collected data, but these are hard to come by. User A1 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
I don't really get what you meant, but if you didn't mean what I thought you meant, that's cool. I need a nap now but I'm going to print this entire page out and reread it carefully before I post the poll later tonight.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am getting too heated, and I am sure my posts were not particularly clear. Sorry. I should probably take a break from policy discussions for a while. I need to work on my Latin anyway. =) Revcasy (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to, but after about 10 tries with people beating me to the punch, I gave up. I might add again that my interest in this issue is not concerned as much with PC itself as with the process. Revcasy (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you or anyone would reject a tool that is in development to assist editing the wikipedia because of claimed issues with the process when you haven't even used the tool. I also am aware that many other vocal objectors to the tool didn't even use it.. What part of the process do you feel is worth rejecting the work the developers and the people who have actually used and trailed the tool? Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been covered many times by many different editors. If you do not agree that the issues in play here are important by now, then you probably never will. I think we must simply come to terms with the fact that we have a major difference of opinion. Revcasy (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree that you didn't trial the tool and as such you can have no idea about its value . You are a vocal opponant of something you didn't even try. As for what issues you imagine are in play, what is actually in play is a simple tool that contributors have been working on and developing to help wikipedia, all else is drama and imagination. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am formally asking you now to leave me alone. I have no desire to receive more messages from you on my talk page. Of course I have no control over what you do either here or on public forums, but as far as I am concerned our conversation is over. Revcasy (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you beat me to it on the PC ;) I hate that sort of subtle edit and am glad PC caught it - makes it look like the reference claims something that it doesn't (when I checked the reference, it does state 15.42% Pushto-speakers, not the 37% as the new edit claimed). I think you were possibly being too kind when you called it just "possible" vandalism! User talk:86.96.227.86 suggests a history of bad faith edits, is it worth leaving yet another warning message do you think? TheGrappler (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Revcasy, thank very much for the kind words. I can appreciate your feelings; just when you think you got it all, something else turns up. The essay by Jürgen Förster is not specifically about Blumentritt, but establishes quite clearly that almost everyone in the Wehrmacht seems to have regarded the Red Army as a joke. Förster is not well known in the English speaking world (and is something of a pariah in Germany for his work about German Army war crimes on the Eastern Front), but he is very useful as a corrective to many of the more self-justifying claims made about the German Army on the Eastern Front. I can't recommend anything by him right off the top of my mind except for his very good, if rather dry work in Germany and the Second World War, but he does bear searching out. I have a few more things I would like to add about Blumentritt, but right now, the article is excellent. Keep up the good article and let me know you get it to featured article status!--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat08:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed your comments on the RfC. It is a pity that lots of people will not bother to read them, and instead will just say "let's vote on it". It dismays me that so many are not prepared to read anything longer than a few sentences; it can surely not be entirely coincidental that the half of editors are under 22 years of age; it is the "Twitter generation", where anything beyond 140 characters is deemed TL;DR. I fear that the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum. Chzz ► 23:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening is unfortunate. I am afraid this was inevitable from the moment the very first straw poll on PC was held. The whole process is polluted beyond repair. I fear the consequences if this bleeds over to the rest of Wikipedia (which may also be inevitable). Revcasy (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did start rough-drafting a possible proposed way-forward, here. I hoped to get help from some people really good at resolving such things. That might still happen, I suppose - but yes, I was very disappointed to see the polling begin. Chzz ► 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a small edit in the Henry IV King of France article, under the heading 4.1 "nicknames". I would like to edit (delete) note #35 since it is not relevant. How do I edit the current note and insert the note "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vert_galant" in its place? Thanks. Petefm (talk) 18:42, 15 August 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) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
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
French
Deutsch
