User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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) 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Eaton (RAAF officer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family history for biographical articles

I've got a bit of a problem on a couple of biographical GARs that I'm doing, Talk:Max-Hellmuth Ostermann/GA1 and Talk:Harold M. McClelland/GA1 that I'd like to get your opinion on. Both editors say that they've hit the limit on any information on family life. The Ostermann article at least mentions a funny incident that he had on the way to his wedding, so there's at least a reference to a family, but the other one completely struck out regarding a family. Now, I've always thought that a "reasonably complete" article ought to have at least some mention of a family, just like his life before and after he did something to make him notable, if appropriate. So should I fail the McClelland GA for not having any references at all to a family or should I pass it on the basis that no available source mentions a family? I'm more inclined to pass the Ostermann article because it does at least make a nod towards a wife, although it would be nice to know if he had any children before he was KIA. You've done a lot of these biographical articles, your thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tough call when there appears to be nothing available. Funnily enough I never used to bother much with family stuff in my early bios till I found it was considered essential for a rounded article, even for tough ole' military types... There's almost always some small hole in every bio but generally I've always found some family info through personnel files, or newspaper archives (especially obituaries, since they always mention family). One thing I find with newspaper archives is that you don't always get stuff just by searching through Google, sometimes you have to go to the newspaper archive site itself and search for the keywords there. Or there may be newspaper archives on microfische in a physical library. If the guys do know such sites for Germany and the US, I'd advise they try this method if they haven't already. If there's still nothing I tend to agree the Ostermann one can still cut it (just). With the McClellen, at least he has a bit of early life even if nothing about wife/kids but that is quite a hole (though not quite so big in a GA article as it would be in an A-Class one).. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obits are very hit or miss here in the States, some are available, but many are not unless you physically get into the newspaper's archive. Or want to pay for a death certificate. Thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honours section

And a happy, healthy and prosperous new year to you, too!
No, I hadn't been following it, but I will now. Thanks for the "heads up". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FACs

You're allowed more than one at time so you didn't have to wait until Scherger finally passed. I've been adding a second once I got to 2-0 for hte past year without drama YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you worked that out pretty quick! I thought I'd seen somewhere that it was only supposed to be one FAC a time but if you reckon it's no problem, I'm sure I can take that as gospel (actually I think I've also seen somewhere that you're not supposed to nom the same article for GA and A simultaneously, but no-ones ever complained about us doing that)... Thanks for above too - cheers and happy new year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the past 12 months almost all of my FAs have taken the whole 4 weeks to find three takers, so I didn't have much of a choice, and I still have a backlog of about 16 FACs anyway. It's rotten when nobody else is interested/active in the topic at all then they don't really come until the last 10 days of the month. I did sometimes have 3 at a time in 2008 but that seems to be no longer acceptable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GA/A thing is not for the experienced article writers like yourselves. It is advice that we give to those who are new to expanding/writing articles to higher classes. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks MBK! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist task force reorganisation

Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Indian military history task force with the Pakistani military history task force to form the new South Asian military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of one of the two defunct task forces, I've transferred your coordinatorship to the new task force; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Your thoughts on a new image for use in the task force banner and userbox, and the creation of Indian and Pakistani working groups under the new South Asian umbrella, would be very welcome (discussion currently taking place here). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWI Contest reminder

Hi mate I've just noticed that you made some significant WWI-scope contributions (including an ACR passed) but made no submissions yet. Is there anything wrong or you simply didn't manage to do it yet? Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, perhaps you know something I don't - apart from a review or two I didn't think I'd done anything 'submittable' this round. Which was the ACR you were talking about? I think my last one just scraped into Round 1... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about an ACR, but you do have a review or two and the elevation of Elwyn King from B to GA. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably the GAN being confused with ACR - anyway, plenty of time for more stuff yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ian Rose! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

George Murray (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Roy Carr - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I

I've noticed all the work you have done on Charles I of England. I'm currently attempting to get it up to Featured status (or at least good article status). Any suggestions? Oh, what exactly does the Military history project coordination do? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I do on the article is simply reverting vandalism but I'd be happy to look it over and comment. I suggest you put it up for peer review (MilHist Peer Review as a for instance, since it's under that project's scope among others) so you may get other perspectives as well as mine... This talks about what MilHist Project Coordinators do... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References at A class review

Ian, in the article Smedley Butler I saw what you suggested re "References" (as opposed to "General"), and I have a further question. "References" includes inline citations, with specific page numbers, to which Kumioko referred. It is not simply a list of references. I've been thinking it should be merged with the Citations section. I understand the tendency to separate notes and citations (although I don't do it myself), but I don't understand the separation of types of citations based on an arbitrary designation of some of them as "general references" and others as "specific references"....Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I hadn't noticed (or taken in, at least) the page numbers in the items listed under References. I don't see the point of them when the Refs section is just supposed to be the full details of sources you refer to in shorthand, with specific page numbers, under Citations (which the editor is doing). Tks for pointing out, will have another look as I'm not finished the review yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section does not include the full detail, only those things which he considered to be "general" references, as opposed to specific references. I could not get him to see that this was confusing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit the References entries looked okay to me apart from the page numbers, which should only be in the inline citations, and the lack of publisher location (although this last doesn't worry me too much) and he's now taken care of the first thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, Thanks again for the review I think the article is a lot better know and I learn a little more each time I go through one of those. Just a heads up I intend to submit it for FA in the next couple weeks once I add a little more content to a couple of the sections (central american service and post retirement mostly), do you have any suggestions of things that should be added changed or modified.

Also, Do you still have the link to the discussion regarding using ribbons in military biographies. Based on your comments at the review I would like to review them and address them at the MILHIST wikiproject talk page for clarification. In my opinion if we allow the ability for this information to be displayed an an article then as a general rule it should be allow to be in an article even at an FA status. If an item cannot be displayed on an article at the highest level then we should not even allow it in WP. To allow something that cannot be on an article at the highest levels simply wastes people time and wastes system resources. Additionally, unless we clarify that articles should or not contain it someone will simply add it again later and potentially cause the article to lose its A class or FA status. As a point of interest I disagree that adding this type of display is image cruft, as it is a part of their military career and uniform. If the determination is made that these cannot be displayed then we might as well not show images of the individual in military uniforms, their military service or the citations for the awards they recieved...In my opinion these ribon displays also help to add context to the Medal of Honor itself (for those who do not know the importance of it especially). I can certainly understand if as an editor you don't like it and choose not to use it in the articles that you edit/create, but I think it should be allowed for those of us that do. I would be ok with making it smaller or defining how it should look on the article, but it should be an option available just like using different reference styles is up to the editor. Just my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Birks

FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Unrelated P.S.: I think you need to think about archiving Jul-Dec 2009 ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I am behind on that, tks for reminding me... ;-) Tks also for link to your helpful (and flattering) message to the newbie! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Migth as well chuck the next one up otherwise you'll have an eternal backlog YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, tks for advice mate - I'm curious though, did you have any particular one in mind as "the next one"...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA paperwork

Ian, for the sake of the paperwork in the article history, would you be so kind to fill out a GA pass review here for HMS Lion (1910)? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had to race off, back now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Hi Ian, thanks for your assessment and kind comments on this article. I'm rather surprised with how well it has turned out, and am seriously considering nominating it for A class status in the next few days. Do you think that this is viable, and have I missed anything relating to the wing? My best source is a biography of Caldwell and I'm a bit worried that it's too Caldwell-centric. Any comments you have on the article would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I almost said in the B-Class assessment that I was looking forward to seeing it at GA/A but thought I should be conservative and wait till I read it word-for-word (I didn't need to do that to assess as B). I should be able to get round to looking it over in detail and offering you some further comments in the next few days, as requested, but basically I expect it should be fine for GA/A. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Charles Eaton (RAAF officer).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Smith (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 January 2010 UTC

Tks Steve! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

take a look?

Ian, would you mind giving Battle of Winterthur 1799 a look over. It's at ACR and Tom has gone through it, but it needs a few other reviews I suppose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December Aviation Contest

		Second Place in the December 2009 round of the Aviation Contest
		Belated congratulations! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Storm, and also for your efforts with scoring and the newsletter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACR close?

Ian, would you mind closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Germany? To the best of my knowledge you haven't commented, and I've had it listed at the coordinator talk page as needing an uninvolved closer for the past few days. If either you or Eurocopter don't get to it within 12 hours I'm going to to ask Roger or Kirill to close it since it has been sitting for a few days. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexander Pentland

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Pentland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FAC

You might want to check the proposal there. One of the provisions there would restrict you, and me too. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presume you mean re. concurrent noms and time limit between noms - yep, saw it, just finishing off a GAR before commenting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout the dup row

I just wanted to apologize for the dup row. I didn't see my name so I added it. Didn't mean to get in the way. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - great debut for you in the revamped contest anyway! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Contest

Hi Ian Rose! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't forget to update your submissions page!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have it bookmarked - we do have till end of the month still, don't we...?! Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, but I just wanted to remind you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 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) 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nhung and Loxton

Thanks, I've responded on teh former YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the latter. Thanks again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, well done on both. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meckiff

Thanks again for reminding me about that habit YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Roy Phillipps

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy Phillipps, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ACW Task Force question

Hi. Quick question. Just joined the ACW Task Force and I'm hoping to take on a few of the "to do's." Is there someplace that one should make a note if they are working on one of the items on the list? Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome aboard! I don't think we have a formal process for that but it'd probably make sense to edit the To Do list (Requested Articles, Expansion Needed or whichever) and just put something like "(under way -- Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC))" after the relevant article(s)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I was doing things properly. Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oswald Watt

On February 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oswald Watt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on this passing its ACR and the DYK appearance Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick -- heh, was it a coup finding that picture at the eleventh hour or what?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was a good find. It's surprising where stuff turns up... Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spent a fair bit of time isolating the shot of him in company with 1st Wing staff for want of any better portrait, then went to the Mitchell on spec and found two copies of the one in question, in Air Force Australia and Diggers (both by Odgers)! The latter just turned out better in the scanning... While we're at this, pre-emptive congrats on No. 1 Wing's FAC too... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian ...though I still have my fingers crossed for that one! Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney meetup

It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query about Cyril Clowes

Hi Ian. I created a page for Cyril Clowes on 14 Feb ~~2009~~, when I realised he had no entry on Wikipedia. Then today I just saw his name in your list of Articles Created. I am a newcomer, (in fact Clowes was my very first created article), so I don't know all the rules, or quite how it all works. Your Clowes page was not on the main space when I first looked there. I apologise if I have gazumped or overwritten anything of yours. Of course if you have more to add to the current article please do so. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think you mean 14 Feb 2010.... ;-) Second, that was just a placeholder (I have a few of those), i.e. an article that I planned to create one day. However I haven't got to it yet (obviously!) so you haven't overwritten anything I've done. Thanks for checking, and thanks for taking the time to get it going - it looks like quite a collaborative effort now, judging from the edit history, and very comprehensive - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Ian. I just read the Peter Brune book and was very surprised Clowes wasn't represented in WP. I guess the more history you read, the more articles are crying out for creation/expansion, and in that context Clowes has not been high priority. Sounds like he was an excellent officer though who deserved a lot better. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 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) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nominations for ACR

Ian, after all the debate at the FA page about "one nomination per time" I've looked all over the ACR requirements and cannot find a similar one. Is there a limit? I have an article that should be closing out soon and I'd like to nominate another one.Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been a while coming, Ruth. I don't recall seeing a "one ACR at a time only" message anywhere, just one about "no simultaneous ACR and GAN for the same article". However the latter is waved for more experienced editors like you and I, so I doubt that anyone will complain if two of your ACRs overlap either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Ian. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election message

"Sorry I must've missed us determining not to pitch the 12-month term as a referendum item. No-one I recall had any serious objections to it so if we feel we need more debate before going to the wider community for a vote that won't even have an effect until the next election after this one (i.e. in October) then I think we're getting too bureaucratic. While I'm still planning to stand for re-election this round, I'm a lot less sure about going through another election process for a further 6-month term after the March-October one ends - we really should be giving ourselves and the community a chance to determine if this one should be the last 6-month term and we get into 12-month terms from October onwards."

The reason this has not happened yet is because I though it would be wise to wait until we had more than just a suggestion to take to the community on the main page. I do not want to change the election time and term limits until the project members have a chance to weigh in on the matter and offer their two cents about it, but that has not happened yet. If you like this could be the major thrust for us for the next six months, starting as soon as the election ends so that in the fall we can make this a referendum item. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment still stands - we can still hold a referendum during this election to determine what we'll do after this next 6-month tranche, from October onwards, so we don't have to worry about it later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound off then, so I can get consensus for or against it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that my mind has been made up for me. Thanks for the input at any rate. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for putting the question to the rest of the team, Tom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas for A Levels

Well, cobber,

A most excellent editing job. Well done!

I was surprised to find a destroyed balloon among the victories, most especially as it was credited to Hellwig. I thought I had pretty much absorbed that book, but somehow I missed the balloon.

And on the subject of victories...you are going to have to grasp the nettle and make the number of victories stated in the lead match the victory table at the end of the article. You can't let the contradiction slide. Someone evaluating the article for GA, A, FA will call you (us) on it. It's such a basic fact that the contradiction could defeat the nomination(s).

I was sorry to see the facts comparing Dallas's squadrons with Richthofen's and the Storks disappear, but I can't blame you. Even though I know these facts are true, I couldn't find a source to cite for them, and they were secondary anyhow. However, I still wish the leadership portion of this article were still stronger. As an impartial American, I have no stake in the evaluation of Allied aces versus Entente Uberkanones, and I conclude that Dallas was as effective a combat leader as Richthofen or Mannock.

Cheers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks George. I noticed you dropping the link to Werner for lack of notability but I understand from Newton and Franks that he was an ace with at least 6-7 victories (Dallas was his 6th) so by WP standards he might well deserve an article. That said, I'm not planning to create it myself so I don't mind losing a red link for now.

The "56" is a direct quote from Newton, and the Australian Dictionary of Biography says "in the fifties" so a reviewer couldn't really gainsay those as far as verifiability goes. The table lists almost 60 confirmed and unconfirmed victories so I don't think there's too much risk really. However, to fireproof it I've altered my wording to "over 50" and cited ADB as well as Newton; this gives a decent correlation with the table I think.

I don't remember losing comparison between the Baron's squadron and Dallas', perhaps someone else dropped that. I did leave the comparison with the Baron under Death & Legacy pretty well intact as you'd cited it from Hellwig.

Anyway, tks for all that. When I (co)nom it at ACR, etc, I'm happy to field comments in the first instance (I think one person needs to be first point of contact) but will certainly defer to you if something touches research I don't have, e.g. Hellwig or Golden Eagles, and you can always weigh in at any time. Ch-eers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, yourself. I would never get an A-Class on my own. I had hopes you would do the wiki-editing that would slide us through, but you went above and beyond that with your proofreading, line editing, and rewriting.

Good on yer, mate!

Have you ever looked at Albert Ball? His is a heart-wrenching tale. He reminds me of so many of the kids that went to Vietnam.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yes, I recall seeing your fine efforts on Ball's article some time ago and thinking it would be good to collaborate on getting that to GA/A/FA. Now that we're progressing nicely in that direction with Dallas I don't see why lightning shouldn't strike twice - I'll put him on my list! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian,

If you have anyone in mind for your next GA/A/FA article, please let me know who. I may be able to help you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks George. I'm working on two WWII-era RAAF pilots right now, Brian Eaton (survived and became an Air Vice Marshal post-war) and Leslie Clisby (achieved 16 victories before being KIA). I think I have everything I need there, but once they're out of the way I'd like to get on to repeating our successful Dallas collaboration with Albert Ball. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great team effort YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate -- and I still haven't forgotten that there's an A/FA begging for Bill Newton when I take the time to augment the article with stuff from his biography, and those tidbits you sent me relating to Nugget... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Articles

Congrats on Oswald Watt. A really interesting read I thought. I learned a few things from that article. If you'd like to do me a favour, could you have a look at Howard Knox Ramey? Its a very short article for reasons explained in the intro. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - I owe Parsecboy one first, yours'll be next. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sturmvogel 66 did it, so you're in the clear. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just noticed - well at least it's done! One thing though, even though Ramey didn't have that long a life, I'd hope to see a bit more detail for a GA-class article - is there nothing more available to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you're disappointed. Unfortunately, I am out of fliers. You could review Leif J. Sverdrup though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes, that's a big 'un (the bloke and the article) but it's a deal - 'course if you can see your way clear for Roderic Dallas some time before the end of the month, that'd be peachy... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: How come there is no page on Bull Garing? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too full of himself by half according to me 'ole dad, so he wasn't high on my list... Should have first a draft of Allan Walters done in the next 24 hours though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR

If you have any new articles that are eligible for the WP:FOUR award, please come by and nominate them as they qualify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, need some competition, eh?! Well, I don't think I have any sitting around to nominate at the moment - it just happens the last FA I achieved was for a stub someone else started - but I have one or two originals in my head that might go all the way, never fear... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, welcome back. My concern when you had to drop your WP activities was not that you had to go (any of us might have to) but that you seemed to do so without any notice. Of course there might have been an emergency meaning you couldn't say anything for a time but I would've expected some message to the other coordinators when things had settled down to say that you'd had to withdraw. As it was, no-one appeared any the wiser. I know that if you're able to dedicate some time to WP/MilHist you would be fine as a coordinator but I think you'd need to address the aforementioned point in your nomination this time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I do decide to run, I will definitely explain that to the WP. I was literally just so busy that I couldn't even get on Wikipedia. Thanks again! Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefs of the Air Staff

Ian, Yep I have started research for Ray Funnell, more on James Rowland and David Evans. I'll leave Fisher ect to your experienced hands.

I tried the CAS shot as the one on the Geoff Shepherd seems to have got through the system.

Regards, --Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no prob, go for your life on Funnell and I'll start on Fisher some time soon. I've also researched Rowland (and McNamara). Were you planning to just add to Rowland or essentially rewrite, because I was leaning towards the latter... I've got data on him from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, High Fliers by Stephens/Isaacs, and Going Solo by Stephens (same for McNamara). If you like, though, you could expand Rowland with what you have and then I'll fill in gaps, meanwhile I'll take the lead on expanding McNamara. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only have stuff from Who's Who, some Eulogy stuff and a couple of pages here and there on James Rowland (once again getting an appropriate phot is proving a challenge)... I will start on David Evans(only a couple of additional things) and Ray Funnell (found some good stuff there). I won't get much time over the comming days to do much work on it I'm afraid. Cheers,--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) PS Any ideas or suggestions are warmly welcomed!--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a WWII-vintage shot of Rowland that I've known about for a while now, only one on AWM it seems, but his CAF portrait is on my list of requests for GNU free licences from the RAAF... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old portrait of Newham from the Cowra Guardian of a youthful Jake Newham in 1953. I am unsure if this is able to be used. I assume so since it is pre 1955? I like that one and would prefer it in the info box. Thoughts? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can put it on Commons because it may not be public domain in the US. This gets a bit complicated but I've been through it with the image nazis... Anything you find on AWM that says "copyright expired - public domain" is fine for Commons, no matter what year it was taken or published, because the AWM is saying unequivocally it's PD (the implication being PD worldwide). However this shot is not from the AWM so for it to go on Commons it has to explicitly satisfy US PD rules as well, which are that it must have been PD in its country of origin on 1 January 1996 (that's the PD-1996 template you see on some Commons shots). While this shot of Newham is PD in Australia now because it's pre-1955 (the PD-Australia template), in 1996 it probably wasn't, it probably only became PD in Australia in 2003, fifty years after publishing. However I have seen shots on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) just satisfying the PD-Australia criteria so that should be worth a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Since then I've created Ray Funnell and made some additions to the Neville McNamara article. I have a bit more to add to Evans and then I'll have a go at Rowland unless you've already started? Nothing ground breaking I'm afraid, its all a bit dry! Cheers --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine - you go ahead with Evans and Rowland, I'll get on to expanding McNamara and creating Fisher over the next few weeks. Let me know when you've done your dash on Funnell, Evans and Rowland and then I'll add to them with my sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, I thought you were doing Rowland and I was doing McNamara - are you doing all of them now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, probably my mistake, I just got in a zone and kept going. Have a look at McNamara, it is pretty dry. I can do Rowland if you like. Just let me know what you need! Cheers, --Oliver Nouther (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I've got out my resources for McNamara and am working on him now, so feel free with Rowland. If I can make a suggestion first, though, do you want to look at some of the other CAS articles I've done (Read and earlier) to standardise formatting? For instance in WP/MilHist we don't do all caps for section headings or add blank lines between paras. The general rule also is that we don't make a big splash of medal ribbons, although a few editors do feel strongly about that - see Frederick Scherger for an example of the collapsible section I employ when people have already added ribbons to an article, which seems to be a compromise at least some of us can live with... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Ribbons concept. I have been in a discussion on the Marie Bashir page about that, it seems superfluous (especially in her case). I noted a lot of ribbons in articles so I thought I'd try a couple as bullet points. I'm not hooked. I'll have a look at some of the other articles you mentioned. I mainly put the breaks in for aesthetics. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC) PS I remember now... I put the extra breaks in the McNamara article purely so that the Ribbons section centered correctly. The top rows were off centre due to the Info box. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, gotcha. Sorry you went to the trouble of putting them in a table but I've removed them now because the majority aren't cited (I know we can tell some from his RAAF portrait but mere visual observation isn't really kosher) and it seems a bit pointless including some ribbons but not others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McNamara - Nice work on the additional bio info etc. I am trying to get a copy of to A Quiet Man to see if there is worthwhile info to be sourced from that. It wasn't I who put the ribbons on the article, they were arlready there. I merely added the references to awards that I could find. I agree there are a few ribbons sections around Wikipedia that are purely based on photo's and not substantiated. I thought of doing them for Evans when I first created his page (and copied McNamara's to my template page as a guide) but soon realised there was no verifiable way of ensuring that such a section was correct. Photo's in uniform are only applicable to that day! I don't think it adds much value to an article anyway. Hence I am hoping to remove Marie Bashir's and replace them with bullets to keep certain editors happy.

Rowland - I have just ordered a book with info on James Rowland so will be able to add something there in about a week or so. I will also be popping into the Mithcell Library in the coming weeks to see if there are any more references to him (and the others I have started). I will be busy in the real world for the next week or so though.

Thanks for the advice and direction, keep it coming. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the Mitchell and/or State Library is where I get most of my hard copy resources too (High Fliers is in the State Library, for instance - I've probably photo-copied half of it over the past year or two)! If you like, let me know a rough time you think you can make it and we might be able to grab coffee and discuss the bios in person. Re. McNamara's Quiet Man, personally I tend to avoid the autobiographies as the temptation is to utilise a lot of their detail, but this can overbalance the article to that (potentially self-serving) perspective. Re. Rowland, as I said earlier, I have a few pages of data on him copied from High Fliers and the Oxford Companion (which is in the Mitchell) but will wait till you get your book and add stuff, then I'll fill in gaps - so we don't double up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Probably not til the end of the month.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated McNamara for DYK (here). BTW, don't worry about searching for The Quiet Man, looks like it's available at the Mitchell on stack. I wouldn't use it, per my earlier caveat about autobigraphies, if we could nail down a few more dates and post-retirement stuff from Who's Who or his personnel file, but we've exhausted the former and the latter isn't online at the National Archives. So I might have a look and if I use it, will try to be judicious...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, its been a while. I have been busy with the real world to do any decent bio stuff. Anyway I have has a stab at Les Fisher. I need to have a break now from looking at it so I will have another go at it in an hour or so. I'll see if I can add anything to Sir James Rowland then too. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Place - Henry Allingham World War I International Contest (1st edition)

SECOND PLACE

Henry Allingham World War I International Contest

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that, mate, and for organising this very stimulating competition! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick - and while I'm at it, pat yourself on the back again for No. 1 Wing RAAF, as it was a significant part of the inspiration for me to concentrate on Oswald Watt and Allan Walters. More examples of the 'ripple effect' of fine articles...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian - I'm actually a bit suprised at how well the No. 1 Wing article turned out - I didn't expect to find enough material to move it beyond B class when I started on it! Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice when that happens, eh... Had the same experience with John Lloyd Waddy - not one serious biographical article on him, just dozens of bits and pieces that finally added up to something worthwhile. I'm going to try and repeat the trick with Brian Eaton, but will be happy if that just makes GA... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Show Ian! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Oliver! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Les Holden

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Les Holden, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Alexander Pentland, Oswald Watt and Roderic Dallas, promoted to A-Class between January and March 2010, the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject hereby award you the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Well done and thank you for your continued contributions to the project. EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Eye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex the great award

I, Casliber, am pleased to award the coveted Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown to Ian Rose for all his military historical content work. This special award recognizes the rare editor who contributes at least15 pieces of featured content, 15 good articles, and 15 "Did you know?" entries. Well done, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you, Casliber! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gorenc

Hi, I noticed you added a comment to Skottieboyy2k's page about the Frank Gorenc article. I've just been watching the editor changing the class ratings on the talk page from a C to an A to an FA. I believe you are a member of the WikiProject Military history, so I was wondering if you would take a look and reassess the class ratings? Thank you. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was just doing it as we speak, June! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that was good timing. I was quite surprised to see the class ratings jump from an A to an FA in a matter of minutes, especially with a {{Primary sources}} tag still on the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to all this stuff so I am not sure what to do about ratings, etc. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Scott Skottieboyy2k (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all how do we meet the requirement for sources as the requirements are a little ambiguous and confusing to me :-/ Scott. Skottieboyy2k (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Peer Review request for the article has garnered a number of suggestions that should point you in the right direction, so go through them first. Most of the sources look acceptable, except the Wikipedia citation. If anything isn't clear, just respond on that page, or feel free to ask me again. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Allan Walters

On March 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allan Walters, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 00:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neville McNamara

On March 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neville McNamara, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to start an article about Jean Suey Yee Lee, the first and the only Chinese Canadian woman in the Royal Canadian Air Force, Women's Division. Would this be okay, under all guidelines? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back sooner, Connormah. Don't know if you've checked out 'notability' guidelines but the MilHist project has this to say on it (it links to Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines). The main thing would be for Lee to have had a reasonable amount of independent coverage by reliable third-party media, e.g. newspaper articles, and/or a bio in a military magazine, or stuff of that nature. An offical RCAF website bio could also be used, as long as it's augmented by some independent material. Hope this helps - feel free to continue this discussion if you want to check further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but so far, I've only been able to find this. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Well it's great to have the images, but there'd need to be more data on her elsewhere to sustain an article, unfortunately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check over the next couple days. I've also sent an email. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, would something like this work? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I gather this is the official Canadian armed forces website? If so, that helps, especially when coupled with the other website. Personally I'd like to see one more ref from somewhere else in addition, say a newspaper article, and you'll still need some basic biographical stuff from somewhere reliable I guess. Do you guys have an online national archives website that permits keyword searches of old newspapers and/or personnel files? Or perhaps searching through GoogleNews or GoogleBooks might yield something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've possible found something on Google Books [1], but it's only a snippet view. Connormah • talk 16:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Walker

Would you have time to take a look at Kenneth Walker? It's currently up for an A-Class review but nobody has looked at it yet. I don't usually nominate American articles for A-class, as they are hard to expand. (user:Kumioko nominated it.) Walker is famous at the U.S. Air University for proving that "the bombers will always get through." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - got Dwight Johns' GA on the list as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom, congrats to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ian, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, and well done to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, right back at ya... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome, congrats and thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST contest question

Hi. I noticed you were active in the Military History contest, so I thought I'd pose my questions to you if that's okay. I'm interested in getting involved and not quite sure how it works. Should editors wait until the first of the month to add their entries? Can articles be added over the course of the month, or do they need to be on the list as of the 1st of the month? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You should wait until at least the first of the month to add entries if you want the entries to count for that particular month, in other words if you want an article to count for March, add it between 1 and 31 March, if you want it to count for April, add it between 1 and 30 April. You don't need to nominate individual articles for improvement at the start of the month and then try to improve them, you can hold back on adding entries until you've improved them, and you can add entries from the first of the month to the last of the month. Hope that all makes sense, let me know if not...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's most helpful, thank you. I'll plan on adding some things in April. If I goof up anything (which is probable), just give me a nudge. And congratulations, by the way, on your re-election! Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and for your support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you for another six months, at least. – Joe N 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure, Joe -- likewise on both counts (share it, brother)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

Generic "Admirals" are "Flag Officers". Generic "Generals" are "Generals".
What are generic "Air Marshals" referred to as?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Chief Marshals, Air Marshals and Air Vice Marshals are generically referred to as Air Marshals, however add Air Commodores to the mix and you collectively call them "Air Officers". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd have a useful answer. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 7 April 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) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lester Brain

On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lester Brain, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass for Neville McNamara

I slotted the old boy into the "Military people" group at WP:GA—if you wish him listed with politicians or something, feel free to move him. Congratulations on the fine article! Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he'll be fine where he is, tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Very nice -- is this the record for most comprehensive, though out, well documented, clear and noteworthy single post ever? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're most kind. Sometimes I do things gradually, sometimes not -- in this case not! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Brian Eaton

The article Brian Eaton you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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:Brian Eaton for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Editor Looking For Some Advice

Well let me start by saying that I am fairly new to the editing game and my edits may not be of the same caliber of some of the more experienced editors out there, so I figured I would ask the French Military History Task Force Coordinator for some advice. I am working on Hohenlohe Regiment and History of the French Foreign Legion right now and I was hoping you might take a look at them and drop me a line if there was something that I was doing that glaringly bad. Yeah I know: random request, but regardless I would be appreciative. User:LeonidasSpartan —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No problem, be happy to -- pls give me a day or so and I'll take a look at them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leonidas, I've left comments on History of the French Foreign Legion at the article's talk page. I'll try to check the other one tomorrow. Don't forget that if you'd like to solicit comments from a potentially wider range of reviewers, you can also put articles up for peer review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas, I did a quick copyedit on Hohenlohe Regiment. Obviously there's not much data there yet but your basic layout/structure is good so if you build on that and source everything you could have a nice article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you may be interested in

Hello there; I enjoyed your thorough reviewing process of Boeing Chinook (UK variants), and I may have another one I've recently done up that is in a similar sort of thread, BAE Sea Harrier. Can you give me any thoughts you have on it, as I'm hoping to put it up for GA soon, once I've cleared either Concorde or History of British Airways through their reviews. Who knows, you might be so interested, you may even want to review it! :D Thanks for the review on the Chinook article once again. Kyteto (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Kyteto. Happy to look over the Sea Harrer one but it will probably not be for a few days -- I have a prior request above to get to plus a few other things, but if you can wait a bit, I'll certainly have a go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just had a very quick of the Sea Harrier article and my first impression is that it looks good structure- and detail-wise, definitely in the ballpark for MilHist B-Class or GA. I can see though that there are a number of paragraphs finishing without citations, which you know I'll pick up on if it comes to GAR... ;-)

Okay, I've given it another whirl, one quick eyes-over would be much appreciated, hopefully this makes it less GAR-failworthy now. :P I've kicked the citations up by 20%, so there is a noticable difference. Kyteto (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, still a couple of sentences (end of first Development para and last sentence of Indian section) missing citations but you can take care of them as you submit for GA... By the way, if you'd like a change of pace, you could always review the FAC for Lester Brain, which while looking healthy hasn't had as many eyes on it as I'd expected this past couple of weeks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again for stopping by Lester Brain's FAC; sorry I didn't get to Sea Harrer but at least someone else did quick-smart -- and passed it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, glad to help, and the result sought has been obtained, so all is good! Next on my list of things to get a GA review for is V-22 Osprey, a thoroughly unique aircraft, tilt-rotor, thus certainly interesting to those with a fascination for aviation! The review's still open for anybody to take I believe. :P Kyteto (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ten minutes to spare, could you look over the AgustaWestland Apache article and see if it qualifies for B status now in your eyes? It'd be a nice help, I've just worked it all over so I'm no longer independant enough to do it! :P Kyteto (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks good, rated B -- well done! Just one bit still needs an extra citation though, the sentence On 17 November 2006 HMS Ark Royal became the first RN aircraft carrier to land an Apache AH Mk1 at Portsmouth Naval Base. Now, I know it's a bigger ask than a B-Class assessment, but if you have time soon, there's always this FAC.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've left a comment, but there's nothing constructive apart from my all-valuable assurance that it meets the grade in my eyes. :D I wondered, I've never actually taken an article beyond the status of GA, I was thinking that History of British Airways may deserve further status gains, from what I've seen it is effectively the best History page behind an Airliner on Wikipedia; but the Peer Review request over on WP:Aviation has seen no activity in months, as you are obviously regularly puttign content through these levels, is there any advice or instructions which you can give me on how to do this? Sadly I don't think the case to run it through WP:Military History can be justified, although requests and assistance there appears to be flowing more smoothly with less dead sections.Kyteto (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by the Eaton FAC; just be aware that, per the Featured Articles instructions, you can use the term "Support" if you believe the article should be promoted to Featured status, "Oppose" if you think it shouldn't, or "Comments" to suggest some changes while remaining neutral about its promotion or otherwise. For the BA article, I've had a quick scan and it looks good to me, well-structured/cited, appropriately detailed, and profusely illustrated. If you've taken any Aviation PR comments on board, then I think it's worth a Featured Article nomination. Normally if an article was at GA I'd suggest a project A-Class Review (ACR) before FAC but, as you've seen, Aviation project reviews aren't as well patronised as in MilHist, and it could take you an awful long time to get through the ACR. Therefore I think I'd bite the bullet and go for FAC -- I'd certainly take the time to review it there, and I reckon others would too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC is now ongoing, but has fallen a little quiet. Do you have the time to swing by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of British Airways/archive1 to see what they're suggesting, as some of their comments and principles I'm quite unfamiliar with! If you notice I've misunderstood or skipped something put forward, can you point it out to me? Kyteto (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Entwistle

Hi, don't believe we've met. I'm James. I am writing Miss Entwistle's biography. From time to time I check on her Wiki to see what, if any, mischief is afoot. I see you had to revise some unusual activity, thanks! I am a bit confused though, what were the other edits about? I looked at the history since April 14, but cannot tell what was going on...do you think there was vandalisim or maybe someone was just a bit tipsy, maybe? Thanks for looking out for the page! Jameszerukjr (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Brian Eaton

The article Brian Eaton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brian Eaton for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nom

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ping

I sent you email. Low prioity, but it amuses me that I'm not the only person editing WP on a Saturday night ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has her girlfriend over -- WP offers solace... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The only responses that come to mind involve putting my foot in my mouth ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Operation American Civil War 150th?

Hi, Ian. I just wanted to bounce an idea off you regarding a brief conversation here and the upcoming 150th of the American Civil War (next year!). The WWI and WWII task forces have impressive "Operations" underway to commemorate upcoming anniversaries. I am particularly intrigued by Operation Normandy as it seems to be a neatly defined project of manageable scope. I think something really should be done to observe the 150th of the ACW on Wikipedia and I'm wondering if we can organize something similar to the Normandy group. I'd be willing to work on this, and some others have expressed interest. But I don't really know how to get something like this off the ground. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, suggestions, etc. And, if you think it's just not a feasible idea, I'd be interested to know that too. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, agree "something should be done"! Remember however that the WWI and Normandy projects have been going on in some fashion for a year or more and still have four years to go, whereas we want to achieve something special with this one in only a year or so -- so we need to prioritise things. Getting the actual ACW article to FA is an obvious one, after that it gets a bit tougher...! Now, I have to admit I have no experience of organising such things either but there's a few things we can do straight away. Why don't you create a new section on the main MilHist talk page with a link to this, to see if we can generate wider input, and start working out a rough list of goals that others can add to. Meanwhile I'll have a word to a few coords who have initiated these things before and invite their comments from an organisational point of view. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts on this. I'm thinking that we can spread the work out over the next five years or so and observe anniversaries as they occurred over the span of the war. So, not everything would need to be buttoned up in the next year. I will post as you suggested and see what sort of input we get. Thanks again, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point mate, you could make the main ACW article, Fort Sumpter, etc, goals for next year, Fredericksburg etc for 2012, Gettysburg etc for 2013, and so on. Yes, you could really give it a good shake that way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on project page protocol. I was contemplating editing the list of articles on the ACW 150th project list, but I'm not sure if that's something that is reserved for coordinators. Is it fair game for me to make some updates? Just didn't want to step on any toes. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe one should need to be a coordinator to edit the content on the main ACW150th page, you just need to observe the consensus on the talk page. So for instance if you were to add the list of battles that appear on the talk page under HP's suggested battles (plus Vicksburg), I think you'd be on safe ground because no-one objected when I asked if anyone had a problem making them 'official'... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. As always, thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les Clisby

Hi, I have reviewed Les Clisby and placed it on hold for seven days with two minor concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Les Clisby/GA1. Canadian Paul 02:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Lester Brain.

Right back at ya! Great job; new to FA in under three weeks! :) Little Mountain 5 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was kinda quick, wasn't it? Definitely a first for me there -- many thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mallory

Hi, Ian:

My, that was a quick response to my editing. You must never sleep.

Put that aside. I have reduced some of the logorrhea, as per your suggestion. Should I submit the article for peer review before nominating it for GA, or is that redundant? PKKloeppel (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, has been a bit of a manic month, Peter... I'd be tempted to go straight to GA and not bother with PR. If you nominate for GA, I'll let someone else review it so you get another perspective, then when you go for MilHist A-Class Review, I'll join in the assessment. When you nominate for ACR, let people know you're thinking of nominating for FA as well, so you get some thoughts on that while people assess for A-Class. I think this could probably go all the way, but other opinions never hurt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Brian Eaton

On April 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brian Eaton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 08:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Cut

Thanks for that. Pity English books don't make more about this colourful figure :( YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great article -- good choice for TFA, especially with that striking photo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your excellent work on Allan Walters, Lester Brain and Brian Eaton which were promoted to A-Class between March and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Eye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 08:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Les Clisby

On April 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Les Clisby, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Well done Ian on a half-century of DYKs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber -- I think that's got to be the shortest interval between eligibility for and receipt of an award that I've ever experienced...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just popped up on my watchlist. Shows teh value of good edit summaries :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the April 2010 Military history WikiProject Contest with 73 points from 6 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 2 May 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) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Ian. I assume somebody has already asked you this already, but would you be interested in running for adminship sometime? I think you'd make a great candidate, and we old-time janitors are running out of steam! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for belated reply, Julian... Yes, someone did offer to nom me a couple of years ago and I demurred as politely as I could for the simple reason that I had so much I wanted to do in article space—but that I'd consider it again six months later or so. Well, here we are twenty-four months later (!) and you're making a similarly thoughtful offer and I have to offer the same excuse. Sometimes I feel I'm barely doing enough as a MilHist Coordinator, I enjoy the article improvement part so much. You've even made me feel a bit guilty about not 'mucking in' to help out the old-time janitors—all I can say in my defence there is that I've been around sufficiently long that I don't bother admins much either...! Never say never, of course, and I might always shift priorities a bit down the track, however at the moment I have to regretfully say no but thanks very much for thinking of me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. That makes sense and I fully understand. Let me know if you ever change your mind, and in the meantime, see you 'round. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Len Waters

How are things? I was not even intending tweaks to the Waters article at the moment, so go for it.

Grant | Talk 11:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Have you been watching The Pacific? I'm quite impressed with the attention to detail, apart from anything else. If only someone would do the same for a Commonwealth air force squadron :-)

Like to have done, but recent after-work commitments have knocked that on the head. Hell, I haven't even seen Beneath Hill 60 yet...! Re. Len, tks for that. Not that I think you're that fussed, but I'll be acknowledging your pioneering efforts on it at any future assessment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF Fairbairn and Canberra FAR

Hi Ian, do you know where a source for the unaccounted bit about VIP flights can be obtained? Or if it is unimportant enoughto bump? It's on FAR at the moment :( and any help on the remaining ADF bits would be appreciated. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little bit clunky with two refs but at least they're from the same RAAF Museum site: Fairbairn confirms that No. 34 Squadron continued to use the airfield after the base was sold; No. 34 Squadron confirms that the squadron operates VIP aircraft. Taken together, that should satisfy sourcing requirements for "...the base continues to be used for RAAF VIP flights". Will see about other bits of the article when I get the chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the bit on other Canberra-based ADF elements mentioned before the Fairbairn bit, the RAN site gives the official line on HMAS Harman's administrative and communications function, and at a pinch I suppose DISCE-ACT and two Army Reserve units might make it count as a "tri-service, multi-user depot"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Brian Eaton.

Great work! Little Mountain 5 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that was quick -- tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Cullen in the Spanish Civil War

Hi Ian, I'm not sure if this is reliable or not, but http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/spanjews.pdf lists Nigel Cullen as a member of the British Battalion of the International Brigades. I think that I've seen the Jewish Virtual Library used in high-rated articles, though I'm not sure where they get their content from or if it's checked before being uploaded. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick, I saw that but wasn't sure it'd pass muster as a source either; might check around for its use in other articles. For your interest, which I didn't go into at the assessment page, I'm almost certain Cullen was born Cohen, which'd explain him being in the Jewish library. I found an entry in the London Gazette about a Horace Cohen (same name as Nigel's father) changing his name to Cullen in the 30s; unfortunately it didn't mention family members so I can't say it's proof positive. Relative Paul Cullen was also born Cohen, changing his name during the war. Will head to Mitchell in next few days to see what else I can dig up on him; be neat to get in the Cohen connection as well as more stuff on the Spanish episode. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought that I'd check in case you hadn't Googled that combination yet ;) From what little I know about the Spanish Civil War, it would have been unusual for him to have not been in the British Battalion, so that seems to check out - in Homage to Catalonia George Orwell remarked that almost all foreigners served in the international brigades, and there were very few in the other militias. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nigel Cullen

On May 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nigel Cullen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Len Waters/GA1

Hi, I have passed your GA nomination Len Waters. It is a very nice little article. Well done! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 16:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller

Replied, thanks. Unforunately, in many cases, Miller was being referred to among a group of people, so often, "he" was hard to squeeze in, and substantial use of the words "all rounder" and "bowler/paceman" raised too many hackles last time YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know, that's why I made the suggestion a gentle full toss you could hit to the boundary if you chose...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Cullen

Hi, I am reviewing you GA nomination and have left a few comments at Talk:Nigel Cullen/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arges at WP:MHAR

It's such a small battle! Have some leniancy, would you? In any case, another paragraph is up. Buggie111 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, our B-Class standard is pretty high, so it's always a decent achievement to meet the criteria. Anyway, you've fleshed out the battle section a bit now so I'm happy to go with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be on call for German submarine U-1023? I'll create it soon. Buggie111 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going overseas next week and will have little web access (and little time for anything before leaving) but will see what I can do... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On call meaning within the hour or two. I'll also be overseas. Buggie111 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

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) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Responded to your comments. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have responded to your remaining comments now. Apologies for taking a few days to respond, quite honestly after spending a considerable amount of time on this article over the last few weeks I couldn't bring myself to re-read it yet again until just now - as it turned out the adjustments were pretty simple. Thanks once again for your interest. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]