Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mackensen

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User2004 (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 3 June 2005 (→Schlieffen Plan: do what you can when you want). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:00, 3 June 2005 by User2004 (talk | contribs) (→Schlieffen Plan: do what you can when you want)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Template:NoSolicitors

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Yeah, that RfAr is completely absurd. And I'm a bit offended I wasn't included. At any rate, it seems headed for well-deserved rejection, so there's not so much to say about it. john k 01:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sir George Young

I'd noticed that it was, but wasn't clear why - particularly when there are no titles or other information that would make the division serve a purpose (e.g. labelling one box as offices of state and the second as peerages and hereditary honours). Do you know where the custom comes from - and where the clearest way forward could be for it to be most productively discussed? Mpntod 19:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Schlieffen Plan

  • The contents of the article do not reflect the considerable debate among scholars regarding Moltke, Schlieffen, and the "Schlieffen Plan." There's doubt now about the viability of the Plan, whether Schlieffen meant it as a war plan, and as to just what Moltke was executing in August of 1914. I've placed the disputed tag on the article to reflect this, but I do intend to engage in re-write (see e.g. Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke) Criticism welcome and appreciated. Mackensen 02:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the best laid plans. The article stills needs to be corrected (or the dispute tag removed). Still interested? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to accept your offer and remove the dispute tag. I hate to see them lingering. May I suggest that if you can take a quick pass and remove any egregious errors then that might improve the accuracy quickly. An irony of veracity is that a vague assertion is more accurate than an improperly precise fact. Anyway, the Schlieffen Plan is an important issue in history and we should have the best possible article. Thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)