User talk:Abraham, B.S./Archive 6

Birks
Hello Abraham. I managed to get to a the library with the only book with some information on Frederick Birks. I have gathered up all I could find and put it into the article, and if you have time, it'd be great to have someone check if it makes sense. (Purely optional!) :) &lowast; \ / (⁂) 11:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells
Bryce, I've had a quick look at the record in The National Archives (UK), the recommendations they hold there have much more detail tah those held in Australia. For example, when he got the OBE, he was actually recommended for a DSO. The recommendation for his CBE also confirms the dates of all his other awards, including all 3 Mentions. I don't like to dive into people's sandboxes without asking, but give the nod, and I'll add the info in. David Underdown (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He seems to have been divisional Chief of Staff (GSO1) at 2nd Alamein. The DSO was for the high quality of his staff work before and during the battle.  I'll try to flesh out all three of his main awards sometime today.  David Underdown (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Also, Derrick, and the FAC on Surrender of Japan.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm surprised nobody else has turned up.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

VC lead
I note a user is removing all the leads for VC winners that use the wording 'highest and most prestigous award etc'... What is your take on this? Do you think this wording is appropriate or does this need to be revised. I'm actualy not unhappy with it and think an explanation of what the VC is necessary in the lead. User_talk:Kernel Saunters 10:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An example is James Hutchinson (VC). Cheers Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It ednt o agree that it's useful for establishing notabiity. I've left a note on the user's talkpage.  David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that it is fair enough. It needs to be pointed out. This is an encyclopedia. People familiar with the VC would not need this explained. However, most people who read an article about a person would be unfamiliar with the VC. I wonder how many people in, say Scotland, know what a MOH was? Wallie (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Knighthoods
I think that Highest Military Award is implied here. I really think that these knighthoods are not genuine awards, like the MOH, Hero etc. If they are included, then about half the commanders have knighthoods, like Zhukov, Spaatz, Eisenhower etc. What do you think. I personally don't like them. Leave them in the UK people, but not in Australia, Canada etc. Let the commander's record speak for itself, not the silly titles. Wallie (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the point I am making. It is only the UK which uses these titles. Surely it is not relevant for Australia. They are civil rather than military awards too. Wallie (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Xa Loi Pagoda raids
Sorry I linked ot the wrong article.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Derrick
Congratulations on this article passing its FA nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. Very well done indeed, Bryce! – Roger Davies  talk 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Are you going to stand for coordship? I hope so. RD
 * To avoid trouble (quake), I've added him to my list ... (When's the next one?) – Roger Davies  talk 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The coordinator election pages are now all set up. Feel free to nominate yourself here :) &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 08:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood
Yeah, it's probably better like that. If you're going to change 3 of them, you might as well change all of them. (And while you're at it, it's probably better grammar to say: The xxx ward at Hollywood Private Hospital is named in his honour?) Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC) BTW: Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles Pope Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Thomas Axford Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Henry Murray Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Leon Goldsworthy Ward - George Cross
 * George Gosse Ward - George Cross
 * Jim Gordon Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Lawrence McCarthy Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Martin O'Meara Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Stan Gurney Ward - Victoria Cross
 * James Woods Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Frederick Bell Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Leslie Starcevich Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Hugh Edwards Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Alfred Gaby Ward - Victoria Cross
 * John Carroll Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Clifford Sadlier Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Hugo Throssell Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Percival Gratwick Ward - Victoria Cross
 * Thanks for the action on Vernon Sturdee.
 * A number of the above don't have their VCs at the AWM, but their pages do say where the VCs are; I've started adding the locations to List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients.
 * I don't suppose you have any information about LTGEN Edward Smart? (So far I haven't found much - User:Pdfpdf/Smart)

Smart

 * "Sorry, but Smart is quite an obscure figure, it seems, as I have seen very little about/on him." - Yes. I find it interesting that a person can get to be LtGen yet still have a "low profile". If you come across anything useful, I'd appreciate it if you brought it to my attention.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only place I can think of that you may find further information on Smart is at the AWM website. It might be worthwhile to search for him in their First World War recommendations for honours and awards section for information on why he was awarded the DSO and MC. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wells

 * "I'm working on Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells myself." - That could be interesting. Have you come across anything discussing how well/badly the COSC worked with the Chairman being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs? Also, Wells was only in the CCOSC position for a year; does anyone discuss that?
 * I notice the VADM Dowling article doesn't say anything much at all! It doesn't even mention that he was CCOSC. And the CDF article makes no mention of the 4 years Scherger spent in the position as a 3*, why he was promoted to ACM, or the period 1965-1976 when the incumbents were 4*. Do you intend to touch the 3* CCOSC issue?
 * (I seem to remember that Ian Rose is a bit of a "Scherg" fan ... )
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't really come across anything discussing the limitations of the CCOSC position; I'm still working on his Second World War service at the moment actually. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got another decade to cover before you get to CCOSC ...
 * I had a quick look around but didn't find anything even vaguely relevant, much less useful. I'll have a look in the library catalogue at work tomorrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Query
Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Scherf
Shubinator (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer
Great answer! It is good to see that you have really thought your answer through. Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
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 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Howell
Could I bother you to explain what "unsupported link" means? Ta, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no references in that link to support its content. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Yes, you're right. (Bother. I thought it was too good to be true - I guess I was right.) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, "There are no references in" these "link[s] to support" their "content"s, either: Pdfpdf (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of these cites do contain references, but these are primarily located in different sections of their respective sites. Also, the claims stated in each of these sources are supported by other published references, which is not the case for the list of medals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Both of these cites do contain references, but these are primarily located in different sections of their respective sites. Also, the claims stated in each of these sources are supported by other published references" - Yeah, that makes sense.
 * "which is not the case for the list of medals" - I don't undestand. Are you saying that there are no other published references for the medals anywhere? Or are you saying something else? In other words, please clarify what you mean by "which is not the case for the list of medals". Pdfpdf (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that these two sites do contain references and their claims are also supported by other sources. The list of medals, on the other hand, does not have any sources on its claims and one would be hard pressed to find any other references supporting these claims. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find any references on "diggerhistory". Can you? Where? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diggerhistory.info is quite a vast site and contains references on several of their pages. However, I will have to admitt it is not the most reliable of sites (hence why I add it to the "External links" section and do not use it as a source per se), but most of its content is supported by other sources and it is even listed under the "Resources" section on the Australian military history task force mainpage. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "and contains references on several of their pages" - Yes, you've already said that.
 * And I replied: "I haven't been able to find any references on 'diggerhistory'. Can you? Where?"
 * Please provide a link to some (any?) of these pages. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to have a better look. See the bottom of this page for an example. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to be more WP:Civil. Thank you for the example. (By-the-way: I have yet to find any references on any of the "VC winners" pages. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is not ONE reference on ANY of the "VC winners" pages.)
 * So, can I deduce from what you are saying, that if I can find ANY page on victoriacross.org.uk that contains references, then this will make that site as acceptable as diggerhistory.info? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was clear and I was civil. You asked for an example, and that was provided. I gained the impression that on the main VC page at Diggerhistory, quite a bit of their information came from the Australian War Memorial. However, as you seem to be so adamant on this, I have removed the link to Diggerhistory from Howell's page. As I have previously stated, much of the information on Diggerhistory is also supported by other sources, while victoriacross.org.uk is not. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your reply.
 * "I was clear" - You were clear about what?
 * "You asked for an example, and that was provided." - Yes. (I replied: "Thank you for the example.")
 * "However, as you seem to be so adamant on this" - Adamant on what? Please explain. If you re-read what I have written, you will note that I have (very deliberately) expressed no opinion(s) - I have only asked questions with the aim of understanding your opinion and hence your motivation for the action you took. I'm not aware that I have been adamant about anything, and I haven't asked you to do anything (other than explain your statements.)
 * "I have removed the link to Diggerhistory from Howell's page." - Sorry? I would hope that the reason you removed it was because (to use your words) "There are no references in that link to support its content". You seem to be implying that you removed it for some other reason. If that is indeed the case, please explain what that other reason was. (As I said in the previous paragraph: I haven't asked you to do anything (other than explain your statements.)
 * "As I have previously stated ... " - Yes. Several times. You will have noticed I acknowledged these statements the first time you made them. I'm not sure why you are repeating them.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck
Best of luck for your coordinator nomination. :) &lowast; \ / (⁂) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Foskett
Unfortunately only Army recommendations for honours have been put online, those for RAF and RN haven't (not sure of the reasoning, but that's the way it is). Having had a quick look through his service record, I'd guess the OBE at least was just for his performance as a squadron leader (particularly given the remarks in his confidential report around p40), but I can't help anymore than that. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bryce, thought you might be interested in this webpage regarding Russell Foskett http://www.markstyling.com/latespitfires3.htm (No.27), showing the markings of his Spitfire. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown


Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on Tom Derrick - meticulously well-sourced throughout. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

mil hist elections
Thanks for responding to my question. I had a look at the GA standard, and the A and B, and my conclusion was that I did not understand the specific role of GA. Hence my question, which is not simply intended to determine someones stance on the issue. Lots of people have said GA is useful and makes a meaningfull distinction, but no one yet has been able to say precisely what that is. I am not interested in sub dividing gaps just for the sake of it, but in marking articles as has having worthwhile content. I have posted this elsewhere, but if I had to design a set of articles of general use as an encyclopedia, then broad coverage is more important than depth in relatively few topics. Also, the only B-criteria which really matters is the one on good coverage of the topic. All the others are bolt-on extras which certainly improve an article, but it is the raw knowledge which is essential. This fact is not reflected in the grading system: There is currently no grading level which marks a cut-off between articles with useful content and those without. This point currently lies somewhere in the midst of start. Sandpiper (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

History of terrorism
Could you not assess the article regardless of the tags? as the editor who placed them has not returned to defend them, and aren't in my opinion justified, the article has been waiting for assessment for sometimeSherzo (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude you seriously consider it still start class? really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia's standards on article quality and assessment, yes I do. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * really? In what ways is it incomplete? and how many more sources are needed? 300? 400? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.196 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A certain number of sources do not need to be used, but for it to reach B-Class than the vast majority of the article requires citations. Also, the article needs to be comprehensive, well written, show a neutral point-of-view, have a clearly defined structure, etc. At the moment, the article does not meet the first point I mentioned and is slightly shaky on the latter point as it requires a decent sized lead. As I haven't been through the prose in detail, I am unsure if it fails on the other points. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In which ways is it "quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." Because it would seem to have an abundance of reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Substantial proportions of the article remain unreferenced. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

where exactly? its heavily source anymore so and the page would be dominated by the reference section! you honestly don't think its at least C if not B? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.252 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, have a good look at the article. There are dozens of citation needed tags throughout, which justifies a start classification. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

there are none i can see, are you sure you're not confusing it with another article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.130 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence, but are you sure you're not confusing this with another article yourself? There are dozens of tags throughout the entire article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck
Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Good luck to you as well! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So as of this moment, you are leading second-place Roger 12–11. You could be the lead coord! :D — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! I doubt that. My expectation is that Roger's will sky rocket soon, and none of us will catch him; for good reason too! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator
It seems we have our second official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
It is great to have someone else who shares my same belief (that we don't need the C-Class), but It seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment I'm not sure what to think, I mean: This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject.
 * But do we really want to have a C-Class?
 * I am really glad to see that the members are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject!
 * But what if this all turns out wrong?
 * Oh, well, as you say, "one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject". I'd prefer it to bow our way, but we have to go where the majority of the project wants. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well all we can do now is Hope our opinion is shared by the Majority of the WikiProject and if not we shall just have to do as the Majority sais :) Good Luck on Making Coordinator, even though you have 20+ votes which constitutes an immediate spot as a coordinator so I guess that makes you a Tranche VII Coordinator. (Cross your fingers on my Bid for Coordinator :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, thank you. And good luck! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I got a note a week or two back asking me to use the interwiki linking format when linking to the toolserver for checklinks on reviews; i.e. ~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfinder.py?page=First_Battle_of_T%C3%A2rgu_Frumos. Just figured that I'd let you know before you got a similar note ;) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't know that. Thanks Ed! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

K Johnson
I've replied.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Russell Foskett
--Dravecky (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

John Wilton
Two questions: 1) Do you personally have a preference for, and/or an opinion about, John Wilton (Australian Army officer) vs John Wilton (general)? 2) Do you have a feeling for the preferences of the Australian milhist community's preferences/opinions? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first, I prefer the "(general)" disambig as, in my mind, it is clearer, simple and easier. As for the second question, I'm not sure I get what you are asking. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can butt in here, Pdfpdf are you asking what Bryce believes the rest of the Oz milhist task force thinks about this question? If so, I don't particularly have a feel for what most think but can give my 2 cents... While I agree the "(general)" is simpler, "(Australian Army officer)" follows the "(RAAF officer)" std that I use where necessary to dab air force officers - this in turns follows the "(RAF officer)" dab that was already in place some time ago. I guess it depends on how you want to categorise things in the dab...  "General" restricts you to a subset of officers but covers those from all nations, while "Australian Army officer" restricts you to one service but covers all officers in that service - which seems a bit more useful to me.  Similary I'd expect "(RAN officer)" to be used rather than "(admiral)", though I haven't checked to see if that's common. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. 1) I not only prefer "(general)", (as Bryce very neatly summarised: "in my mind, it is clearer, simple and easier", and also it is shorter), and for those reasons, I actually dislike "(Australian Army officer)". 2a) I was trying to get a quick feeling for what the community felt without actually starting a debate within the community. So Ian, yes, you guessed correctly. 2b) My personal overall preference is for the shorter disambig. Hence, whereas I dislike "Aus... A... o...", I just prefer "(admiral)" to "(RAN officer)". 2c) Regarding "(RAAF officer)" and "(Air marshal)", I'm undecided. (Probably ambivalent.) 3a) "General" restricts you to a subset of officers but covers those from all nations, while "Australian Army officer" restricts you to one service but covers all officers in that service - which seems a bit more useful to me. - That begs the question" "Useful for what?". I was working on the assumption that there was only one answer: "Useful for disambiguation". Ian: Are there other answers?
 * Perhaps it's my IT experience but I always like standards that require as little thought as possible to remember and re-use as often as possible...! So to me, having a standard that says "thou shalt dab by using service branch + 'officer' (or 'soldier' if not commissioned)" is useful. Also, where there's reasoned arguments on both sides (as here) I prefer to go with what seems to reflect the broadest consensus. While I don't think there's necessarily consensus in the Oz task force on this (witness this discussion!) I think there may be in the wider milhist community, where not only "RAF officer" is a common enough dab but also "British Army officer", "Royal Navy officer", and "USAF officer". Hence, while "John Wilton (Australian Army officer)" may seem long-winded compared to "John Wilton (general)", I think it's preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3b) Considering disambig only, I not only think "(general)" is superior for the reasons already mentioned, but it is also quite definitive (i.e. Oz has many "John Smith (Australian Army officer)", but not many "John Smith (general)". If one strikes difficulty between nations, I personally still much prefer "John Smith (Australian general)" to "John Smith (Australian Army officer)".

So that's what I think. Why? Well, I would like "John Wilton (Australian Army officer)" moved back to "John Wilton (general)", but I don't want to be involved in an endless unpleasant "debate", so, I thought I'd see if I could determine what the response to the idea might be BEFORE I actually initiated anything. Again, thanks gentlemen. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I see a sizeable conversation has taken place in my absence. As I said, I prefer "(general)" and "(admiral)", as they are not only simpler but are already consistant with other Australian general and admiral articles. That said, I prefer the use of "(RAAF officer)" for the Air Force articles as I believe they are more correct. The use of "marshal" as a disambig is a little difficult in this case, IMO, due to the variants. However, I will go which ever way the community decides; Wikipedia is based on concenus after all. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "However, I will go which ever way the community decides" - I'm a tiny bit concerned about which community(ies) will be making which decisions for which "audiences". For example, the Wiki-British-Army-Milhist-community have decided upon, and implemented "(British Army officer)". Conversely, to date, the Wiki-Australian-Army-Milhist-community has been quite comfortable, (perhaps even "happy"?), with "(general)".
 * Note that the move on Wilton was made by a Brit saying "m (moved John Wilton (General) to John Wilton (Australian Army officer): standard naming)". Whose standard? I would venture to say "NOT the Wiki-Australian-Army-Milhist-community standard", because I don't think there is one.
 * Anyway, to get to the point, as I've already said, I would like "John Wilton (Australian Army officer)" moved back to "John Wilton (general)". Would it be TOO bold if I just went ahead and did it? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking more the consensus of the Australian Milhist community here. Personally, I don't think it would be too bold; it can always be moved back after all. Also, at the moment, it would be consistant with other Australian general bios. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. My support of you for MilHist coordinator was based entirely on your statement, Q/A and links therein. In my view you surpassed the other candidates in the width and quality of your involvement, and I would have supported you for a lead coordinator if there was a separate vote for that, since you inspired more trust than the others. If your real life permits you to allot enough time for it, consider getting familiarized with the details of MilHist to the extent that you could one day take the responsibilities of the lead coordinator. I am sure you would make an excellent job. I wish you good luck. I am an editor that from time to time gets involved with isolated milhist issues, but not on regular bases, and I am sure there is quite a number of people like me. Please, be aware of this two-tier constituency: some people edit mostly milhist, others come to it again and again, but only occasionally. Perhaps you could help frame the outside communication along the same level of interests. People like me would not get involved in everything, it would be overwhelming for us. But we help on issue by issue basis. Again, best of luck! Dc76\talk 10:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you are welcome. You don't have to remember my comments. I am content with the fact that you read them, and thus would be aware of that (in the back of your mind) in order to better advance the purpose of MilHist (as to how specifically, I don't know, that's for you to figure out as you go along, you are more experienced). It is not important to remember who told you. When I will need assistance in MilHist issues, be sure I will ask. :) Until then, best of luck, Dc76\talk 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re copyedits
No problem Bryce - I've bumped Operation Perch up my list due to an imminent FAC, but I should be able to get to Edgar Towner very soon. Best, EyeSerene talk 08:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Input requested...
...here. It's my opinion that some of the photos aren't needed; am I alone in that? If so, feel free to tell me. :-) Thanks Bryce, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agree and have left some comments to that effect. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
for fixing that. Sometimes one just gets a little confused in all the wiki markup :) Cheers! Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I look forward to serving with you for the next 6 months, Congrats! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats. :) – Juliancolton  | Talk 02:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hearty Congrats from me! Perseus71 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations indeed! You have more than earned the position and I look forward to working with you over the next 6 months. Cam (Chat) 05:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. - That's more than ok. I stole your VC-topic page idea to, so that's 1-1.

Well done from me too. Good to have you aboard ;) EyeSerene talk 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Brownell, Middleton, etc
Hi mate, congrats on your election and also on Raymond Brownell, which I'll review when I can. I'm guessing you approached him primarily from the perspective of him being an ace, while I tend to approach the RAAF articles from the senior officer perspective. Great cooincidence that the same month we each pick guys who fit both those categories (Brownell and Cole) without duplicating effort! Just so you're aware, I've made a list of those articles I'm planning on developing when I can, under 'Contributions/Articles created' on my user page, so be interested for you to check and see if any are on your list - don't think there are any aces there except John Waddy (Morotai Mutiny connection) but I could be wrong... Also, now I've upgraded McNamara and Newton, I'm pretty well done with Australian air VCs - McNamara I wanted because he was also a senior officer, Newton because of the second-hand connection through family. So pls feel free to tackle Ron Middleton - that'd make us 'even' since you expanded Edwards - Middleton is currently rated B but I don't think it's really that at the moment and could certainly use your expert touch to take it to at least GA, if you're interested. I've found a couple of pictures from his funeral on AWM that could be added as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe   N  01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationality and British
The nationality of a Scotsman is both Scottish and British. This is defined as such in the Wiki dictionary. The term British has also changed over time. Everyone in the British Commonwealth was considered British during WW2. Did you know that? The word British is also very emotive. According to a recent survey, most Scots people do not consider themselves British, but as Scottish. English people consider themselves to be British rather than English. It is interesting that people know that Gordon Brown is a Scot, but do not know that Dowding or Haig was one. The term English or Scottish defines someone, whereas British is very confusing. Wallie (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Air Marshall
OK. Thanks for the tip. That was careless on my part. :) Wallie (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The term is commonly misspelt when used with ranks due to the word marshall typically utilizing the double "l". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Always polite
You are always polite, and I appreciate that. We can always disagree, but should respect each other. Thanks. :) Wallie (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Keep up the good work - Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For your hard work

 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raymond Brownell
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Contest scoreboard changes
I saw the changes you made to the scoreboard in this edit. The way I understand it (from examining the last several contest scoreboards) is that the total articles, total points, and average points don't include the most recently completed month's tally, which is why those two were blank. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for that particular set up, but all of the other entrants from last month's contest reflect that as well. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have actually never noticed that the previous month's tally, etc is not added. Perhaps this is just an oversight, as I am pretty sure that when I first entered the contest the full tallies and totals were added to my entry. However, feel free to change it back if you wish, although I don't know if I understand the reasoning for that method either. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS check
G'day Bryce. Despite my amazingly slow progress on Frederick Birks, I have come across a pdf that appears to be very useful. However, I am not certain about its reliability. I asked another user before what they thought of it, but I'm still not 100% on this. The pdf is here. I'm sure it can be used for the uncontroversial things, such as his siblings, but I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the rest of it. Any help would be appreciated. :) &lowast; \ / (⁂) 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Eurocopter gave you the wrong medal. Don't put this one on the awards page yet. -MBK004 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, the wrong medal is still here, just hidden. -MBK004 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Also, I've removed the incorrect one. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
-MBK004 22:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hastings Ismay
Thanks so very much for the review of Hastings Ismay. I'm not quite sure what sort of infobox you have in mind for the article, so I thought I'd just drop you a note. If you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of an example, I'd be happy to put one together for the article. Other than that, I think I've tackled all your suggestions. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help so far. However, I'm wondering about the  tag on the sentence "Ismay also attended many Allied conferences without Churchill, and accompanied other British leaders such as Foreign Minister Anthony Eden on their travels.".  The specific examples are outlined below (numerous conferences with Churchill as well as the conferences with Beaverbrook and Eden).  Do you not feel that these citations are sufficient to verify the statement?  I'm afraid that I don't have a source that makes the statement that he went to a lot of conferences in a convenient way.  Rather, most sources make reference to the conferences one by one or in groups of a few, rather than to all of them in general.  If you really think the sentence requires a citation, I'm afraid the best I'll be able to do is something like a citation of a ten page range in his memoirs.  Your thoughts?  Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto Becher
Hi Abraham Re Otto Becher ACR if you want to check with the tool box there are disamb links that need fixing Gunnery S.O.S Manus --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hastings Ismay
Hi, I was just wondering if you'd had a chance to look back over the Hastings Ismay article since you reviewed it. I believe I've addressed all the concerns you raised in the ACR, and I was wondering if you had any other input, or perhaps were ready to switch to support. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find it
I'm sure there must be a reason for the Toni Gowacki lead to include a fairly common RAF gong like the DFC, while excluding the highest military awards for bravery from Poland, but I can't find it. Can you direct me to it please. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Moved here for continuity). Hi. The reason that the letters "DFC" and "DFM" are included after Antoni Glowacki's name is becasue he is a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Distinguished Flying Medal (DFM), both of which carry the aforementioned letters as postnominals. The Polish honours he was decorated with do not carry postnominals, which is why I removed the abbreviated form of the decorations from his name. I hope this helps clarify things. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I saw your edit summary which said "Polish honours do not carry postnominals". I can't find the reason why "Polish honours do not carry postnominals", and would like to be directed to it please. Can you help? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Interested
I was interested to see in this edit that you removed the list of units, and I wondered why? (It doesn't bother me, it was just unexpected, and given that the "unit" parameter exists in the template, I couldn't think of a reason for removing them. No doubt it's something straightforward.) Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured there was little reason to have a massive list of units Payne served in during his career cluttering up the infobox. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, "No doubt it's something straightforward." Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Badcoe
I can't find any evidence to support Badcoe joining the Army in 1950. In fact, the only mention I can find at all is:
 * PETER BADCOE was born in Adelaide on 11 January 1934 and was educated in his home city. He joined the South Australian public service as a clerk.  Early in 1952 he served seven weeks in the 16th National Service battalion and on 12 July entered the Officer Cadet School, Portsea, Victoria, from which he graduated Second Lieutenant on 13 December 1952.

http://www.aattv.iinet.net.au/badcoe.htm

Do you mind if I change the date back to 1952? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I just found a mention of 1950: http://www.iainevans.com.au/media/files/3547.doc
 * Do you have a better source? (I'm not sure how reliable a politician's press release is as a source?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. The source I used for that was the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry on Badcoe. I didn't add a cite in as I intend to (like all other Oz VC recipients) further expand the article sometime in the future. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to this guy's old school. On another note, on a pedantic note about the WP:MHCON, Keith Johnson was adjudged as start class at the end of last month's round. A user added "B" mid-month but didn't fill out the five lists so it was counted as a start last month.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I presume a few years later, though? All fixed in regards to Johnson and MILCON, too; a nice extra fix points. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just updated the Bugle contest listing accordingly.  Roger Davies  talk 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rog. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorting
Hi. Re this and this, could I make you aware of Categorization of people, which says: Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For a surname which begins with Mc or Mac, the category sort key should always be typed as Mac with the remainder of the name in lowercase — for example, Macdonald, Maccluskey or Macmorris — regardless of how the surname is actually spelled.


 * Hi Jack. Hmm, I appologise for reverting your edits; I was unaware of this quideline. Does seem kind of an unusual rule, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Accepted. Yep, various editors seem unaware of it. I fully support the rationale, though.  If you're checking a category with many members, it's far better to have all the Mc/Mac names not only (a) together, but (b) with the latter part of the name sorted alphabetically.  So that, for example, all the McDonalds and MacDonalds (not to mention Mcdonalds and Macdonalds) appear together, with Andrew coming before Arthur before Brian before Charles before Mary ..... regardless of how these people's surnames (which all appear correctly spelled) are actually spelled.  And all the Mc/MacDonalds appear before any of the Mc/MacFarlanes, which appear before any of the Mc/MacGregors, etc.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, that's understandable. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Harness Horse of the Year
I removed a Thoroughbred Horse template from this standardbred racing article. If you want it back, thats OK. However, I cannot understand why the template is in any way connected to standardbred racing, other than the fact that both are completely different areas in horseracing. Wallie (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)