User talk:Acabashi/Archive 3

GOCE drive report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning a PEE
I mean I have reached the "P"s with infobox/image adding. Please put me out of my misery and let me know where Pickthorpe and Pyewipe are? Also would it be worth adding Potterhanworth Booths to Potterhanworth article as a redirect? Many thanks for your valid opinion :) Panderoona (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Potterhanworth Booths is as far away from Potterhanworth as next door Branston Booths is from Branston - Branston Booths has an article. I suppose it depends on how much info is available to warrant separate articles. Don't know where Pickthorpe and Pyewipe are - can't find them. Had a go at Welby. Acabashi (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probs deserves its own page then and have ideas in my mind that there is wood/nature reserve/SSSI around there, will see what I can find. thanks. Pickthorpe and Pyewipe have a feeling the latter is in Grimsby but cant tell you why. I will have a look. Thanks anyways. Panderoona (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found the Pyewipe road in Grimsby, but it doesn't seem to go there. I think it might just be an area in Grimsby: Acabashi (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gonna leave it for 2nite, but have a feeling I will have to REDIRECT to Grimsby and leave it at that. Had hoped to pick something personal to the area up but its not looking good. Thx x Panderoona (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls Help!! also sent msg to Sitush
HELP!! I tried to archive my talk page and its gone wrong!! pls help fix it for me, I have no idea where I am wrong. I was terrified of doing this, lol. Pls dont be offended if other user gets there first, I just need my poor page fixed - MANY thanks to you both for helping. Panderoona (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I have set up a bot to do the work in future.. Panderoona moved her TP to an archive, thereby creating a redirect from her TP to that new page. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks I thought OMG what have I done???!!!! hopefully it wont be so traumatic in future!!! Panderoona (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something still doesnt seem right? is it just a case of waiting for the bot to clear it up? Panderoona (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have the "archive after" setting to 14 days, which is reasonable I think, but it could take up to 2 weeks for it to kick-in. Patience is required :) I've added a comment on KeithD's talk about Carlton-le-Moorland that you might want to read. Acabashi (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * okay no problem - regarding the carlton le moorland page - yes Im not sure what the approach to that should be either. I probs should have reverted it and sent the guy a note on his talk page. But asking Keiths a great idea - just in case we come up against something like that in future we will have a definitive answer. Panderoona (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its kicked in now, so Im a happy bunny :) thanks again. Regarding Carlton le Moorland - I had a bit of a go at it, in the hope that whoever comes along to edit it with all that blurb next time will HOPEFULLY get an idea of what we are trying to achieve. Panderoona (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice on Spitalgate please
I see its VERY similar in nature to Harrowby, and I dont want to trip up over Spitalgate within and Spitalgate without etc so I thought Id ask you for some advice before I even begin? Many thanks. A. Panderoona (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just back from Lincs. I didn't know about a Within and Without to be truthful. Within must be within Grantham I suspect, like Harrowby Within. Spitalgate (Spittelgate) has been part of Grantham for over 100 years, and when Grantham had its own independent borough council that Spittlegate was under. A bit like Gedney that I visited today, where Gedney and Gedney Church End are traditionally listed as different places but you wouldn't guess it if you drove through, and again just like Caythorpe and Frieston. Genuki has some info that you've probably seen: . S Without if it still exists must be to the south between Grantham and the civil parish of Little Ponton and Stroxton. There is Saltersford (not on the Lincs list), which is just a farm now, that could be within S Without or Little Ponton. Or Saltersford could be part of Grantham, as in the Grantham article it says that Grantham borders Little Ponton at its south, but with no ref of course, and would mitigate against the existence of an extant Spitalgate Without. A bit confusing - apologies. You can see the geography on Google Earth. I wish I could find a good map of civil parish boundaries with places marked. Acabashi (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Im with you on that one, it would be a very useful tool. I knew Spitalgate was in Grantham, but when I checked Genuki and Vision of Britain it does seem to come up with this within/without again. I dont want to trip over it so for simplicities sake it might be better to redirect it to Grantham and put a short bit in the Grantham article about it being there without referencing the complicated stuff?? Im aware of the Gedney thing - some of my ancestors came from Gedney Church End (including a rather infamous one!) Holbeach is similar and so is Friskney, all places where its very very easy to trip up. How did the Lincs trip go? Panderoona (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a small map going around some Lincs articles containing all parish boundaries with the specific article parish idented in red - only useful for a general county geographic location - so of very limited use. You could put Spittlegate in Grantham, perhaps as a new para under "Geography" (can't think wherelse it could go). Maybe Manthorpe and Harrowby Within could go in as a mention as well as historic areas that are now part of Grantham's modern urban sprawl geographic expression. Great Gonerby is also all but attached, in fact "Gonerby Hill Foot", the buffer and link between Grantham and Great Gonerby is yet another area. I must try to find a detailed map of the exact modern boundaries of Grantham's governmental area - a visit to the council offices next time I'm up (a week Friday) I think.
 * Lincs went OK thanks - new doors and windows in, and plasterer booked. A bit showery but new pickies. Acabashi (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear its going well and you managed to get some piccies. Im going to leave Spitalgate for now and keep moving on through the S's creating infoboxes - reason being I want to be sure of the facts before I muck up an article about a reasonable sized town. Im thinking Spitalgate is part of Grantham, Manthorpe and Gonerby Hill Foot are to the north end of the town, Harrowby to the east side of town. I want to word it right but not sure how without a "dinosaurish" meaningless waffle. Panderoona (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Elkington
Not too sure what to do with this? North and South Elkington redirect to this page, and yet theres nothing on it? Should I un-redirect and create articles on the two villages, as seems most sensible, although Im not entirely sure how much Ill find? Panderoona (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * South Elkington is bigger, but is 1.5 miles from North Elkington, which looks like it's just a farm on http://gridreferencefinder.com
 * I would see what there is on North Elkington, and if there isn't much, lump it with South under Elkington as a civil parish. Acabashi (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * good idea - sorry totally forgot abt Elkington, I was getting quite excited since there is "only" the Ts and Ws to go in the list. See you are still working on James Fowler. He was a busy man wasnt he! Panderoona (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He was prolific. Over the 30 years he flourished he must have been getting through one building every three months on average, and that's with the ones I've found, and I know there are more out there, particularly domestic buildings. I'm going to expand the article. He was, and is, a controversial figure who has been seen by many as a destructive force with his "improvements" - nowadays the done thing is to conserve, not restore.
 * I'm finding it difficult to keep to just waffle-and-spam flush - I get drawn into adding and adjusting, which makes the thing a lot slower. Acabashi (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Im beginning to find that too - every now and then you see something thats been tagged as having no citations and you cant help but go and look for "something" to write about.... and then theres the "oh my god how long has it been in this state" waffle and you cant help but get the tippex out. Ive also adjusted the images a fair bit - theres usually something other than the local pub to put as an infobox image, and I only include them if theres something else notable about them - listed buildings/historical interest in some form like the Dambusters pub. Its still a learning curve for me, but Im getting there, and once Ive reached the end of the list then its back to A and try and expand and improve. We make a good team Acabashi Panderoona (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We certainly do - but it would be nice if other Lincs projectors gave a hand - one or two seem to come in with the odd useful minor clean-ups after we've been through the articles, so they know what's happening. After I've cleaned out dead or erroneous links and the worst excesses, I do tend to leave s, or s but it's not in expectation that you might wade-in, as you did with Wragby :), it's just that I hope perhaps against better judgment that original editors might come back and improve their work. I am reluctant to find cites for lazy unreferenced stuff that others dump on WP - it's called "polishing s**t " and I won't do it :) - ultimately I'd rather spend my time putting up my own stuff while mitigating the mess caused by others, after all, our good work is degraded if it's boxed-around with badly-written rubbish.
 * I notice that you are being more explanatory in your edit summaries - this does indicate good faith on your part and, as I've said before, will tend to stop gratuitous additions and reversions - I've never had any of my edits not taken seriously or reverted since I've been fully explanatory in summaries, even in band and BLP articles. Onwards and upwards. Acabashi (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They know we are doing too good a job and are busying themselves with other things. Or perhaps they think we took over? :S either way, I dont really mind since it means we will have an awful lot to be proud of once we get to Z, and its certainly keeping us occupied. I know what you mean about gratuitous dumping of uncited waffle after we have done hard work on an article, and I must admit I have come across people "elsewhere" who have moaned about being jumped on whilst doing similar, and claiming people jealously guard "their" pages. Yeah well theres a reason for that, it took a long time and the last thing you need is someone coming along and writing a pile of poo all over it!. Im trying to get there with all of it still, I tend to nose around the watchlist and see what others write (including yourself) and Ive learnt an awful lot that way. I have just done the Elkington piece :D so now I can go back to my Ts with a happy heart. Im sure Mr Fowler would be very pleased with your article - sounds like it will become quite substantial before you have finished. Panderoona (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS regarding Wragby (and Carlton le Moorland as a previous example) when I come along and find something in that bad a shape I feel like I have to do something to improve it - not necessarily repair the whole thing, but just be able to cite some of it so it doesnt look so bad... ah its amazing we ever sleep Panderoona (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hagnaby Abbey
I thought the same as you initially, but then I realised there are two Hagnabys, the other being Hannah_cum_Hagnaby and its this latter one that is the site of the Abbey. Panderoona (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very confusing. I'll shift the priory stuff to Hannah-cum-Hagnaby. Pevsner does have a bit about the "Hagnaby" faux priory that I can put in. Acabashi (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Pevsner talks (1964) of remnants of Hagnaby Priory (house) of 1835 - does this mean that this "Priory" is no more ? BLB has no info, and English Heritage site won't search right now - typical this time of night - rubbish site - BLB is better for getting initial info. Apologies for my lack of concentration. Acabashi (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No proble - I only worked it out because one my ancestors was born at Hannah cum Hagnaby, I was working on the Hagnaby article and then realised it was a completely different place to the one I was aware of. Then I thought "so where was the Abbey?", and the answer was in the map feature on pastscape - which comes up with Hannah cum Hagnaby. I wish our Lincolnshire olds had not decided to keep using the same village names over and over! As for Hagnaby (faux) Priory I have a very brief write up of it in Shell Guide To Lincolnshire' by Henry Thorold and Jack Yates, published by Faber and Faber in 1965. It says "The belt of evergreen and deciduous trees denotes the Priory. This was never a religious  house, but a 19th century Gothic creation (Charles Kirk, architect, 1835)." So that certainly backs up the idea that it is no more. There are only two listed entries for a search on "Hagnaby" on National Heritage list - one is the church of St Andrew in Hannah cum Hagnaby, and the other is the scheduled site of the Abbey also in Hannah cum Hagnaby. I agree the NHL site is a pain compared to BLB. If they want to be the superior official source they should sort their site out. Panderoona (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Acabashi. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Horncastle
Hi A Have done a few edits on Horncastle. Feel the significance of the Horncastle Horse Fair is a bit lost amongst other information, sadly, and also there is no mention of note regarding the Bullring. Not too well up on Horncastle history but do know of the historical importance of these places regarding Horncastle. No mention of the Wong which is the green where the fair was held, in Cagthorpe. No mention of Cagthorpe altho a seperate article on the place exists. Cagthorpe is essentially an area encorporating Hopkin St Waring Street and Cagthorpe, by the Wong. Also know of Revd George Hall who wrote the Gypsies Parson (he was rector of Ruckland) and probably deserves as much a mention as George Borrow who wrote Lavo Lil and the Romany Rye. Unsure how to add this to article in a meaningful way? feeling very rusty after time off the wiki-board.Panderoona (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you again. There was a "Horncastle Horse Fair" article that was deleted through copyright probs from, see . So what can be added to the Horncastle page could use some of this rewritten and precised if horncastlediscovered.com can be seen as a reliable source. You could go to link 2 above, then go to the Talk page, then add a Find sources tag there, and click "Show preview" and use the links to get sources - but for goodness sake don't click save by mistake! For this you could copy the Find sources tag I've added to the Horncastle Talk page and add it across. It's a good way of getting sources - there is probably an easier way to do it but I haven't found it yet - you could probably do it directly through Google, but what do I know :). You could do the same kind of thing with "The Gypsies Parson" "Cagthorpe Horse Fair", "Wong Horsefair", "Bullring Horsefair" etc and "Revd George Hall" - ie start new pages without saving, go to their Talk page and add the Find sources tag. The "Lincolnshire Wolds Horncastle" cite doesn't really support the text and is a tad commercial. We can only find what we can find and do what we can do - and as we know, those and that who we know through our own knowledge are, or will be, historically important are going to be left out through lack of refs, while inconsequential non-entities, D list "celebrities" and trivial topics can reign because there is loads of web stuff on them. Ultimately there is no quality control on WP - if it has a ref it's in - my view anyway :) Acabashi (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Periphery (band)
Hey man, I believe you were the one that added the WP:Original Research, and WP:Verifiability tags? I've spent the past few hours trying to fix the article to the best of my abilities, I think I've got it to a point where those tags can be removed, but since you added them, I figured I'd bring it up to you, and see if you see any reason to leave them. - Jer Hit me up 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Jer - a valiant effort. I think the temps could go. You might run into trouble from others with two of the sites - Periphery's record company site Roadrunner might not be seen as independent and neutral, and the Guitar messenger interview might be challenged as not being reliable as it is Misha Mansoor self-referencing. Self-referencing interviews are fine if they are on weighty sites of the likes of Rolling Stone or New York Times - it depends on how editors view the reliability of Guitar Messenger - I'm relaxed about it. There are other earlier raw refs there, not yours, that are troublesome - A YouTube inline cite is usually not accepted, the Formspring is a forum (forums are frowned-on) and adds nothing to the article, and Mixdownmag, that I've removed before I think, is a front cover that shows Periphery's name but doesn't in anyway support the claims in the text.


 * I would add an explanation of all the good faith work you have done on to the talk page - then to make sure editors go there, do a minor edit on the article and preface the edit summary with "See Talk Page" - you then might find other editors getting involved and being helpful. Good work, thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out those sources! I'll be attempting to find new sources to replace all the ones you have pointed later on today most likely.


 * As for the second part of your message, I'm not really sure I understand your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I put a message on the talk page mentioning the work I've done today, and asking people to go over it in case I've made some mistake, or missed anything important? - Jer Hit me up 21:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as you have done a great amount of good research that amounts to a major edit, I would explain on the talk page that you have added refs to support much of the text - it wouldn't imply that you have made mistakes. This would mean that editors, given the past toing-and-froing on the page, will treat your additions with respect, not reverting any of them without proper reasoning - sometimes a fond hope I know :) - I find it usually works to deter scurrilous reverts and additions on difficult articles. Adding a "See Talk Page" in the edit summary of a further minor edit for this purpose doesn't imply that you are falling on your sword, but shows you as an editor who is courteous enough to explain your edits and of course expects the same back. An edit and its summary will eventually disappear off the bottom of a busy page, but something in the talk page can usually last longer. Acabashi (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the tips! I've left a message on the talk page, and done as you said with the edit summary! - Jer Hit me up 22:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Miguel Gimenez Igualada
There are not english language references available on the subject. That is why i included trasnlated text in the other languages in the footnotes so as to address any doubts. English wikipedia allows this when english language references are not available.--Eduen (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no translations into English in the footnotes ("References" section?). If you mean that the text in the "Thoughts" section is a translation into English, then this text translation is best to go into the footnotes/references after the appropriate link, with a precis of his ideas then added into "Thoughts". As Thoughts" stands at the moment it is written in a way that would be opaque to the average English language reader, and needs a copyedit precis. I could do this, but I cannot get the sense of much of what is written - and I know little of Igualada, my interest lying particularly with Bakunin's ideas. I appreciate the sincerity of your addition, but as it stands it needs quite a bit of work to make it understandable. Acabashi (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Places in England
Yes, you're more than welcome to re-create any-or-all of the articles which I deleted today for reasons of having been created by a blocked user. DS (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2011
Delivered December 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2012
Delivered January 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 11:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Good morning again,

I notice that you restored the original attribution to the failure by the Balkan Air Force to deliver supplies to a lack of suitable drop zones. I wonder where you found this as it may be an excuse made on their behalf.

George Fielding told me that on a number of occasions he was waiting for a drop on a moonlit plateau only to receive a message to say that the drop was abandoned owing to met (i.e. bad weather) over DZ (drop zone). There was no lack of suitable drop zones. It was the Battle of Britain spirit that was lacking. The Osoppo began to mistrust George Fielding who in his report states that they were beginning to regard as "Perfidious Albion".

Alan Ogden who wrote "A Spur Called Courage" which is a series of pen portraits of SOE operatives in Italy told me that Balkan Airforce morale was very low at the time as they had been somewhat mauled in operations over Poland.

I do have a copy of George Fielding's report which I could scan and email to you if you let me know where.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.34.215 (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The "dropping zone" assertion was in the The Times obit, in fact all the biog that I first put up was precised from that source. Unfortunately, since then Mr Murdock has decided we have to pay to look at all but the teaser page. I don't fully know how this will play with Wikipedia, but it might be that The Times becomes not such a good source, even in retrospect: WP:PAYWALL. The Times might have received the drop zone claim from a not disinterested party as you say, or it might be journalist editorialised interpretation, but the claim was made in a reliable source and WP stresses verifiability (Verifiability) rather than truth. I have added The Telegraph obit, which doesn't mention drop zones. I think I will buy the Tillotson and Ogden books.
 * As for George Fielding's report, an obviously accurate and no doubt intriguing record, it's a shame it cannot be used as a source, unless it is published - in paper or online - or archived, in reliable places and in an accessible form. We all probably have information that we know is true, and maybe contradicts what is written in WP, but can't use through lack of verifiability.
 * You might say that there are lots of WP articles that don't follow WP dicta, and you would be right - some are atrocious. But articles that are believed are those that are well-referenced, and we owe it to Fielding that this article be trusted. Acabashi (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Good morning yet again,

Thanks for the information about copyright.

I have removed the backing from the photograph which has a stamp on the back."FAYER Camera Portraits, 66 Grosvenor Street London W1". I have Googled them and there is no reference to them so they must have closed down some years ago.

You are right. I was too transparent in saying that the photograph was taken in 1945. I do have another photograph of George Fielding which I know was taken in 1940 as it was his engagement photograph. I would need to get that scanned before uploading it.

Regards again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.34.215 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Major George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Hi,

Thanks for sending the feedback.

The photograph which I uploaded was takem when George Fielding returned from Italy in 1945 and both The Telegraph and The Times published a photograph taken at the same time when they published his obituaries. The photograph is therefore 66 years old and there is no record of the photographer.

Is this any good? I do have other photographs but they are of lesser quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Equester (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back. I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's 70 years when copyright ends, see here, here and here. If you have others that are older we might be OK. What you should do when uploading an image is to add as much info about it as you can, giving a publication date or date when the photo was taken, and by or for whom if possible - or if it is your own work, or you own the picture exclusively, state such. In any case, while uploading an image you should explicitly state why you think the photo is out of copyright if it not your own work. Unfortunately you stated 1945 in the image description - the pic has been on WP since last May unobserved, until you added it to the article, when someone picked up on it, probably on recent changes patrol. As it stands, the image will be deleted after 7 days, which is a shame as it's a fantastic pic - if only it was 4 years older :) . Acabashi (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
If the mention of unsuitable drop zones originated in The Times Obituary, then it was something that Michael Tillotson dug up as he edited that obituary. I did send a copy of the report to the Imperial War Museum who have it archived. You have probably guessed by now my relationship to George Fielding and hence my intimate knowledge of his life.

He told me a great deal in a series of anecdotes which included his and his group’s insensitive reception by the Americans on their return, the infamous ‘Bottle of Bari’ message and its resultant blinding row with a senior Royal Air Force officer during which George Fielding argued forcibly that the message was well justified. It was however the attitude of Charles Villiers over the loss of the gold sovereigns that rankled most containing as it did it an insinuation that the sovereigns had been stolen. Sir Charles Villiers went on to become Chairman of British Steel and in 1979 the Steel Workers Union Leader, Bill Sirs, led a strike against him. The Liverpool dockers who enjoyed reserved occupation status went on strike in 1940 when they were tasked with loading the tanks of ‘C’ Squadron, 3rd Hussars to join a waiting convoy that was to take them to defend Crete. This event had understandably coloured George Fielding's views on strikers generally and dockers in particular. However such were his memories of Villiers’ treatment of him, that in the case of Bill Sirs, he was sympathetic with a strikers’ leader for the only time in his life.

Alan Ogden's book is worth reading but I would steer you in the direction of David Stafford's "Mission Accomplished" first if you have not already read it. This is the official history of SOE in Italy and paints the big picture. Alan Ogden's book brings some of the characters to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.34.215 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is good. If you have an archive number reference for Fielding's report lodged at the IWM his recollections can be used in the article - perhaps understandably in the big scheme of things, I can't find it on the web site, but it has to be logged and numbered. As the depositor, they should be able to give you their reference for it. I have added the Stafford book to Further reading. I remember that in the Times obit there was mention that he received a cold-shouldered (my words) response when he returned to Southern Italy from the mission, but the obit didn't elaborate. Acabashi (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good morning again,

I have emailed Dr. Roderick Bailey in the IMW asking for that reference and will let you have it if I received it.

With regard to the "cold shoulder" which the group received when they finally arrived at the American Air Base, the story is as follows:

Fielding was surprised by his reception at the Southern Italian base to which he was flown. When his group attempted to board the truck that met their aeroplane, they were told firmly: “This vehicle is for the use of members of the United States forces only” and made to walk some considerable distance to their quarters. "I suppose it was not much more after 300 miles" he remarked. Two immaculate British Officers watched them trudging by and one observed "bit hairy!". Although literally starving they were allowed no food in the mess until the appointed hour. Instead, they were obliged to look at a sumptuous buffet through locked glass doors for an hour and a half. As soon as the doors were opened they unsurprisingly but to the shock of the Americans descended on the buffet and consumed most of it. Fielding was then summoned to the presence of a senior RAF officer to receive a reprimand for the ‘Bottle of Bari’ message. He was far from contrite, pointing out that he had waited night after night under a star light sky for his supplies only to be told that the drop was cancelled due to the weather. He had given all his remaining Italian money to a priest (Don Aurelio who was also a member of the Osoppo)who was part of his group with a request that he should have a stained glass window placed in his church in memory of those partisans who were killed. Whilst this was accepted, the loss of twenty gold sovereigns which had somehow fallen out of his pocket in a barn in which he was hiding nearly resulted in a Board of Enquiry. The debriefing officer was Charles Villiers whose thinly veiled suggestion that theft was involved he never forgave.

I have another slightly older photograph (1940, I believe, so out of copyright) which was used by both The Times and The Telegraph for George Fielding's obituaries and I will upload that.

I notice that you have added the Denbigh ancestry. Is it worth including the fact that he was a direct descendant (great, great, great grandson) of Henry Fielding, the Novelist and Chief Magistrate of Westminster? Debretts confirms this.

Kind regards again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Equester (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is absolutely worth adding Henry Fielding direct descendency, and if we have a Debretts ref and perhaps web link, perfect. You could add this after the Denbigh sentence. When you add the photo, do this to Wikipedia Commons, and free it for use by WP by releasing copyright, if you are prepared to do this. Without the copyright waiver it would be deleted - you probably know this anyway. If you get a IWM ref, his recollections, if substantial, could be added as a separate sub section within the SOE Mission section. This would have to be in words different to those deposited at the IWM, otherwise it would be a copyright breach against the IWM and indeed, oddly, yourself :) But short quotes can be used. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Major George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Good afternoon and thank you for this help.

The Henry Fielding lineage is defined under the Denbigh and Desmond pages in Debrett's as he (HF) was a great grandson of the Earl Of Denbigh. The anomaly lies in the spelling of the family name. Henry Fielding was born Feilding but changed the spelling of his name to comply with "i before e except after c" claiming (perhaps correctly) to be the first member of the family to leanr how to spell.

Thank you for your help about loading the photograph in Wikipedia Commons. Until I started on this I was 'Wikipedia Virgin' so I am still finding my way.

I have had no reaction yet from IWM but Dr. Bailey has taken his time in the past.

Kind regards again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Equester (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Major George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Good morning,

I have now heard from Dr. Bailey at IMW as follows:

"The best thing for your researcher to do is to contact the IWM and arrange a visit to see the file. When he writes, he should say he wishes to see the papers of Major G R H Fielding DSO (ref.16751). He can find a summary of the collection here: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030018669"

I hope that the reference is what you need.

Best wishes,

ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Equester (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2012
Delivered February 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)