User talk:David Underdown/Archive 3

Claude Ashton & Roger Winlaw
Thanks for adding the RAF career details to these two articles. For future reference, how could I find the London Gazette entries? They didn't come up in my Google searches. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image captions: reply
Actually, I did make changes (Auden) in order to avoid redirects, which you would have noticed, if you had cared to check properly. But you're right in that I did more changes. I wasn't aware of the WP:MOS on captions. Now that I am, I believe it's wrong. There's no reason why there shouldn't be a period. Now, I expect you to remove most periods in the captions, since very few of them have full sentences. "A portrait of XX." is not a full sentence. A full sentence requires a verb. LarRan (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 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) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary patrons in calendar
You will find an English translation of the norms for the liturgical calendar here. In the list of celebrations by order of precedence, a "memorial of a secondary patron of the place, diocese, region, or province, country or wider territory, or of an order or congregation and of a religious province" (11 a) comes immediately after "obligatory memorials in the General Calendar" (10). (If you prefer the Latin text, exactly as it is on page 102 of the latest (2002) typical edition of the Missale Romanum, you can find it here.) Seems to me therefore that, just as a country's principal patron will certainly be honoured with (at least) a feast (8 c) – if the saint is especially important in the devotional life of the country, as in Ireland Saint Patrick puts all local patrons into the shade, his celebration may well be ranked as a solemnity – a country's secondary patron will certainly be honoured with (at minimum) an obligatory memorial in that country's liturgical calendar (11 a), and, consequently, any saint who is not honoured in that calendar with an obligatory memorial – an optional memorial would not be enough – is not (now) a national patron, whatever about the past. Am I wrong? Lima (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I should have read the Latin text, the reference to which I added later. It has no explicit mention of "country". However, the English translation may be right in considering Latin "regio" to include "country".  It would be most peculiar for the Church in a country to rank a saint as its patron, even if only a secondary patron, and then exclude that saint from its liturgical calendar!  (Of course, I mean "patron" in the technical sense, since all the hundreds of saints who have some connection with England can be and are looked on as patrons of England.)  So I think the translation given can be called correct, even if not literal.  Lima (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look today at the Talk page. I don't have the patience/interest to try to read the huge amount that has been added to it since I last visited it, and I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, which would require a full reading.  But my eye fell on an egregious (implicit) non sequitur: "The liturgical calendar is not responsible for defining patron saints."  Of course not.  It's the other way round: the existence of patron saints defines the liturgical calendar.  The calendar takes account of the existence of patron saints (if any), it doesn't make them.  The liturgical calendar (rather, the mention in it of a patron saint) is the result, not the cause.  But if the result is missing, it can be deduced that the cause is missing also.
 * And I see I'm misquoted. What we have for England is precisely "the official set of liturgical celebrations, drawn up by a country's Catholic bishops and confirmed by the Holy See", which I said is authoritative.  I distinguished that from a printed calendar, which may of course contain mistakes, anything from simple misprints to graver errors.
 * I wish you patience. Lima (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip Kelland
Hello David! How are you? Thank you for finding a reference for the article Philip Kelland. Good job! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup tomorrow lunchtime
Hi there. You signed up for Meetup/London 9. See you tomorrow then! ...by the way, what's this other meeting? mysterious coincidence -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And can I interest you in Meetup/London 10. This Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Cole
Many thanks for the work on Eric Cole. There are several people who have played cricket for national sides in Africa and the Far East pre-World War II due to being stationed in those countries, and I can never find enough info on their army careers! Andrew nixon (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it will appear in DYK on the main page in the next couple of days. I'm almost embarrassed that the DYK hook will be about his cricket career now that his army career has been given such a good treatment. In future, I may just give you a nudge about any army cricketers who I've written about. I tend to write mostly about cricketers from the non-test nations, and given the nature of British colonial life prior to World War II, many from that period are also Army officers. Two recent ones you may want to have a look at are James Leaf - he played for the Catterick Garrison cricket team, so that should help any search for information, and Geoffrey Rawson, who served at the War Office and was Aide de Camp to George VI. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one for you to check out may be Robert Melsome, created today. He played cricket for the Army, and his Army career seems to have taken him to China, Nigeria and Egypt, playing cricket in all three countries. According to his Wisden obituary, he once got a mention in despatches for his cricket, though I suspect that may be an exaggeration. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter
Your copy editing has much improved the article. Very good.Kbservices (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Harold Winthrop Clapp
Thanks for your additional information on Clapp's knighthood, and then immediately citing a reference for the information. If only everyone on Wikipedia could follow your example!
 * Zzrbiker (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence
Good work!! You really fleshed out his early life and career. Thanks:) Malick78 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Unfortunately I don't have access to the ODNB, so I can't see what other things might be added. As for his name, I had an inkling that he didn't use 'Frederick', but disambiguation would then be a problem, especially since they were both lawyers at roughly the same time. You're probably right though that it should be moved. Geoffrey Lawrence (non-Nuremburg lawyer) hardly sounds good though. What would you suggest? Malick78 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've activated my email now:) So if you could send the article I'd be eternally grateful;)  The disambig page sounds like a good idea. Would you like to do it or shall I (I haven't done one before)? Malick78 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that. I'll check it tonight:) Malick78 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi David; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk  22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712
The link you added for the GC and BEM comes up as an error page when accessed. Would you take a look and see it it can be corrected please? Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any middle name. It must have been recorded somewhere. I'll see what I can find on the net. I've added the citations to the article, I think they say it better than I could, plus which, it helps towards the 5x expansion for DYK which I've nominated the article for. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A search only produced one possible lead, but nothing conclusive. I've asked on Pprune for further info. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A possible result! The middle one of the three could be him. Unfortunately my ancient computer won't open the PDF file. I was surprised it opened the link you posted, normally it just freezes when a PDF file is opened. Can you check it out, if it is him can you add the citation to the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pprune has turned up a middle initial of M. Another piece of the jigsaw. :-)) Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling at Waterloo
Thanks for the note: I'll raise it on the talk page. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jeffery
Isn't it interesting how when you put the quote into context, it seems quite mild. Take it out of context, and it sounds quite dubious! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI re your change... admission to the Order of St John does confer postnominals but convention dictates that they are only used in connection with the work of the Order. Gs and GGs have by tradition always included them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbjerry (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Pears
Hey David, How are you? Thank you for your contributions to the article Edwin Pears. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Wilkinson
I've created an article on Alexander Wilkinson (full name William Alexander Camac Wilkinson) today, concentrating on his lengthy cricket career. He was also in the army, was awarded the DSO and Military Cross, and it would appear that he served in both World Wars, so this one may be one you can really get your teeth into. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From the sounds of things, the man should have a film made about him! Andrew nixon (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He's already been nominated for DYK for his cricket career by a third party. Feel free to suggest an alternative hook including some of his army exploits though. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

8th KRIH
Hey thanks. I really appreciate your input on the 8th KRIH page. You and Woody have been of great help there.GDD1000 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Problem user
All blocked and tagged. If you get anymore trouble just leave me another message. Hope all is good. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one
I was about to start an article on Archibald Cassels' cricket career, but as it would appear he is much more notable for his army career, having been awarded the Order of the Bath, the DSO and been knighted, I thought you might want to start this one, and I'll add the cricket stuff later. According to his Wisden obituary, he "led the liberation of Le Havre and St. Valéry, became GOC of the 51st Highland Division and eventually Chief of the General Staff." Andrew nixon (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Rowland Musson, an RAF man who made "world record flights" and his brother Major General Aflred Musson, CB, CBE. I have a particular interest in those two as they happen to be from my home town! No problem if you don't have the time, but I feel that as these players are more notable for their military careers, someone more knowledgeable in that area should start of their articles. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that Cassels already had an article at James Cassels (British Army officer). I've added his cricket career to the article, but for someone so notable, the army section is sorely in need of attention. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Yeomanry regiments of the British Army
Thanks I have some reverting to do Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Derek Denny-Brown
Thanks for expanding that article. I've managed to get hold of a biography by a retired neurologist and am awaiting another from Dr Vilensky, who seems to be in charge of his papers.

Yesterday I created Charles Symonds. He seems to have had an army career of sorts. Any hope of working some of that into his biography - I'm not that savvy with military phraseology! JFW | T@lk  15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm on Athens but only as an employee of the NHS. No ODNB for me... Possibly a good thing as I wouldn't know when to stop. JFW | T@lk  16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hinchcliffe
Hi, I understand the referencing problem and am slowly working to track additional sources, but ...there are forums and forums. The WW1 modellers seem to have an attitude to detail and integrity that is sadly lacking in Wiki, (no vandalism, none, no trolls, none). I hope that they read the page and help update it. I plan to email the main contributors when it is tidy. Thanks for your contributions so far. p.s. the DSO/DFC error was because i didn't already know the difference and was working too late. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it in Sopwith Camel Aces of World War 1 By Denes Bernad, Norman Franks  on page 48.  May find other references later. Autodidactyl (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I cant find any other Google references for AFC.

Hi, I have just added Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom year book 1918, chapter on Aviators Certificates dated 30 September 1918 to Hinchcliffe as an offline reference ... One of the experts at the WW1 Modelers forum emailed me, I think he has the book. It would be good if you know how to find/access an online version? I am out of my depth on military history and archives. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

QOOH
I did try and mix it up a little maybe more got througth from the Oxfordshie CC site then I intended, still learning the ropes but I did think the link with Churchill was worth copying Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Geoff
It is indeed, my spellchecker has been Americanising. It normally is not a big issue provided that the whole article uses only one form of spelling, but articles on British topics ought to use British spellings. I'll swap my spellchecker over and tinker. Cheers SGGH speak! 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've already done it. Thanks! SGGH speak! 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AoC
I'm unclear as to what you find "completely unnecessary" about the phrase "de jure." Ordinary episcopal duties in the diocese are carried out by the Bishop in Canterbury. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it could be withdrawn: that's what "delegated" means. The addition of two words (while leaving the fleshing out to the main body of the article) is hardly overloading the lead. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 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) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Chepstow
Thanks for the infobox! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Medeshamstede
I'm not sure your edit summary, "per WP:Layout, [a guideline, not policy] see also should precede refs." is correct, so I don't know why you were so quick to revert. Can you please point to where it explicitly states that? Chrisieboy (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

John Oswald
Thankyou for all your work on this article with the gazette references. I rechecked the ODNB regarding the references you had trouble with and found that he was made GCMG in 1838 and the exact wording regarding the Rifle Brigade was "colonel-commandant of one of the batteries of the rifle brigade", which seems a little odd to me as I wasn't aware the Rifle Brigade was organised into batteries. I don't know whether you intend to continue looking, but if you do this may be of assistance. Thanks again, --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, again!
I'm beginning to suspect myopia has become my nemesis on Wikipedia! Although that is a self-diagnosis...thanks for spotting that :-). SoLando (Talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SOME ADVICE
David, I have been informed of a duplicte artricle and with your help with other articles i am approaching youself, the two articles are, Lothian and Border Horse and Lothians and Border Horse Yeomanry, I have been working on the 1st and the other appears to be a copy , Question is how do we delete one, is it just a request for speedy delation ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy service - I had not considered that way good idea Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Erik Chisholm
It would be fantastic to have access to Grove's Dictionary of Music and the ODNB. I actually did reference the ODNB but have lost my access to it since I changed university and would love to check some facts for referencing. And I'm pretty sure my public library in Rondebosch doesn't subscribe! --Cazo3788 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just received the emails and the ODNB article works. Thanks again. --Cazo3788 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peterborough
David, I have spent some considerable time working on this article and I get the impression you routinely go through my edits afterwards, which is rather demoralising, particularly as you do not make any substantive contributions there yourself. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point. Sorry, I think I just need another cup of tea! Chrisieboy (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help trying to find Gazette
Whilst doing up the Crimean War recipients list, I can't seem to find the gazetting of the VC for Matthew Hughes. I have tried all the search combinations I can think of, I was wondering if you would know where to find it? I presume it is on the general backdated VC list for the Crimean War, but I can't seem to find it. Any help would be most appreciated, thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is perfect, very much appreciated as always! Best Regards. Woody (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenzing Norgay
Hey David, why did you add "Tibetan" in the lead of Tenzing Norgay? Norgay is viewed as a hero in Nepal. Cheers! 202.79.62.21 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was reading WP:RS. Reliable sources are important on Wikipedia. Here, Norgay is viewed as a Nepali. But, on Wikipedia, reliable sources are needed. I will try to find them. Cheers! 202.79.62.21 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
Thanks for the copy-edit at Christopher Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams's "Style"
Re: "it's not presented as a quote, but as a summary":

I'm saying something like this--entirely subjective--needs to be "presented as a quote". Footnotes should be reserved for fact. TheScotch (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archibald Bodkin
Hi, once again I'm here to congratulate you on your good work on an article:) Well done! Malick78 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Symonds
I noticed your expansion. Well done. Let me know when you're done so I can fix up the medicine related bits. JFW | T@lk  20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Yep, you may be right and criteria nr. 3 is met, but please consider expanding the lead and the Early life sections, which are quite short now. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions on the Harveian Lecture and the Radcliffe travelling fellowship are certainly correct. I can't get a handle on Arthur Sims, as he doesn't appear on Munk's Roll and I have no idea how to search for Knights. JFW | T@lk  13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:War of Heaven
If it is not too much trouble, I would like you to express your view. Not many people visit the page. Lima (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not trying to canvas are you? Those entries are not quite enough to convince me you are, so forget it. However, I will let you know that I put an RfCreli on the talk page to drum up interest so we might want to step away from personally notifying other editors lest it look like canvasing. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was not trying to canvas. As you can see from the list you made, I began with the two editors who were already involved, one of whom (as you can see on my Talk page) was until then quite hostile to me. To get more people involved, what could I do - since I did not know of the method that you have kindly used on the article's Talk page - but get some Talk links from my Talk page, starting from the bottom (the most recent)?  If you look at what they wrote, you will see that not all of them have always been in agreement with me; but I thought that, in this matter, the more, the better.  I felt sure that scarcely anyone would support the claim of the "owner" of the article to control the gateway to editing it.  If one of those I contacted is the editor who has since attacked Sherurcij anonymously, I was and am quite unaware of any previous conflict between him and Sherurcij.  Lima (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Meredith Davies (conductor)
Thanks for the warning, David, and for your quick work cleaning up the refs etc. I thought the sources were generally well-written and comprehensive, so there wasn't a great deal I could do to make it independently written, not being a believer in change for its own sake. But it's early days; when editors become aware of the article, I'm sure it'll become unrecognisable in due course. I'm still stunned there was no article on Davies until now. We'll also need a disambig page since Meredith Davies leads to something rather unprepossessing. Maybe a redirect is in order since my guy would win hands down in the notability stakes. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Revocations...
Thanks a lot! Me too...it gets really tedious, but considering I added them as external links in the first place, I guess it was my fault. Craigy (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bishops and archbishops movement...
I see you moved one back to the proper capitalization, could you perhaps do the rest that got moved? List of archbishops of York, List of bishops of Worcester, and List of bishops of Durham? Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I don't move pages often! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Montague David Eder
Thank you for your input on my new article on Montague David Eder. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross
Hmm, seems I was wrong... I could swear it didn't say that when the information was first entered into the article. Anyway, thanks for double-checking! Oh, and do you watch Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients, if not, could you possibly enter your opinion, if you have one, on the subject? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce
Since you've had a longstanding editing interest and involvement with William's article, I thought you might like to know that it is currently a candidate for featured article.--Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 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) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip Vian
Thanks for you "housework" on my amends to this article. My hope is to move it at least to "B" class and fill in some of the gaps. I remain unfamiliar with the finer points of citations,particularly with so few sources, so an educated input is handy. Due to domestic considerations I'm adding info in smallish bits. Untidy, but getting there. Don't let me get too out of line! Folks at 137 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick
I'd nominate for GA. I do have reservations about the Reputation and recognition section, however, especially the first paragaph which seems overly......effusive (as does the Oxford section). The article presents the subject with clarity but there are some unnecessary elements, entirely in the aforementioned sections. But I'm not exactly confident (!) in my judgement at this precise moment for the reason I mentioned on my talk :-D. SoLando (Talk) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM
I checked WP:MOSNUM where does it say numbers above 10 are to be represented by numbers and not written out? Gavin Scott (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I mention this to you only because of the conversation we were having on Geogre's talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

John Fauquier
Thanks for the correction! It is (AFAIK) non standard for US military so I did the american thing and assumed no one was different. :) Protonk (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops!
Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Margret Thatcher article. I should've remembered peers' special ability to use "The Right Honourable", but I didn't and decided I'd be clever instead. I also made that mistake on the James Callaghan article, and have since undone my mistake. Thanks again! -- The_socialist talk? 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
Could you kindly look at this article as it needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

wiki-meetup
Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 9; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hook queried
Your DYK hook has been queried, please check the DYK Suggestions page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick
I must have read your 10 July message on my return from an absence of over a week and then forgotten about it until today, when I read a further message on my Talk page. I have now, at last, done as you asked and have looked at the Henry Chadwick article. Should I apologize for my inability to find faults in it, or should I rather congratulate you? I prefer the latter. Lima (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: removing duplicate references
You wrote:

I clarified:

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick (theologian)
My, what a pleasure to read, and it is not often I get to say that on Wikipedia. I suggest GAC should be the next port of call. In terms of problems, the Lead needs to be expanded, it needs to summarise the article. I suggest two or three paragraphs given the size of the article. In terms of language, it seems very good, perhaps a bit too flattering in places, though the references seem to back it up. Perhaps an infobox? Oh, and a picture would be helpful. Best regards. Woody (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it needs to truly summarise the article. I would add in where he was born, where he grew up, perhaps some of his early work. It should be a duplication of the article, but reduced. So, there is no need to worry about it being in the body of the article: that is the idea. See Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope for an idea, or any of the other WP:FAs for inspiration. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral Infoboxes
Hi there, I completely see your point about the profusion of church related infoboxes. However, I do feel that in this case a new infobox can be justified. I wanted to add an infobox to each English Cathedral(and eventually British), so that the different articles would all have a common element. Before, maybe only 10 or so of the cathedral articles had infoboxes - and those were of several different types. I compared the different infobox types that were in use, and found that none of them were really able to deal with the specific problems of British Cathedrals. The 'parish church' infobox deals mainly with the ecclesiastical side of the church; but with cathedrals, there is often a lot of interest in the architectural details. On the other hand the 'Religious buildings' infobox allows information about architecture to be inputted, but has negligible room to describe the ecclesiastical nature of the church; it also assumes that a religious building has only been built once, whereas clearly British cathedrals have long (and glorious) histories of rebuilding,

I therefore think that a new infobox, which allows all this information to be shown quickly and concisely, has a role to play. I agree that two infoboxes is unnecessary, so in response to you comments I have expanded the 'UK cathedral' infobox to include all the ecclesiatical information that the parish church infobox shows. This means that all the cathedral articles can keep the same infobox content, but in a single, unified infobox. I hope this is to your satisfaction - I have modified the articles you reverted according so you can see how they would/will look - but I'm more than willing to consider alternative arrangements.

Cheers! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the top trumps, but I still think that infoboxes are useful for summarising infomation regarding a subject. Moreover, since some cathedral articles had infoboxes, it makes sense that they should all have one; and that they should have the same type of infobox. I'm continuing to tweak it to make it more useful - I've changed the colour to more of a pastel shade - and am happy to receive more feedback. As regards the locations issue - all the information can all be put in the 'location' category, the county/country categories don't necessarily need to be used. Personally, I think it looks better as I have it (otherwise it reads like an address), but it can be altered as necessary. For instance, I've now changed this for St Paul's, because the repitition of 'City of London' was, in retrospect, pointless. Ultimately, the infobox is designed so that as much or little information can be put in as is desired. I included as much information as I could quickly find when I added them,, because I thought adding an empty infobox would cause even more problems. If people with a vested interest in a given article don't want certain information there, then it doesn't need to be there.
 * MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note that the reason i'm trying to pipe web addresses is that because the simple web address is an unbroken line of text, the infobox tries to display it all on one line. This means that the categories on the left hand side get squished, and go on to two lines. This makes the infobox much longer than is necessary. So by making the web address as short as possible (or by allowing it to go on to two lines for very long web addresses), this problem is avoided. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 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) 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

TNA
I see you've noticed the National Archives sudden generosity also? I'm currently searching and downloading as fast as I can as I'll never get another chance like this without spending months down at Kew. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that the officers' service records are going to be charged for at some point in the future, or if they do that that the quality improves. I brought this to the attention of a naval historian who, having downloaded a record or two which he already had hard copies of, commented "You get what you pay for".  Can't really argue with that really. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a VAST list of Admirals and Captains of the First World War to work through and collect information for. I have 500+ Times obituaries but they're not the most reliable of sources so I'll be looking to make sure that I have a Service Record match for each one.  I'm going to have to work fast! Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. Unfortunately I'm currently in the U.S.A. so I'm five hours behind these things and just noticed the change.  Can't say I'm too impressed with being charged for knowledge on my national heritage.  I really can't say I'd want to pay three pounds fifty for such uniformly poor quality service records. At least Mark Kerr on my shopping basket was unaffected! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully sympathise with the arguments for charging, I just don't agree with them. Getting to Kew for a student majoring in a totally different subject is an utter pain in the a**e though - a number of acquaintances have been, though, and photographed most manuals I need anyway.  At any rate, when I'm down in London in September I'll be heading for the British Library I think to photograph the Naval Staff Appreciation of the Battle of Jutland which was ordered destroyed by Sir Charles Madden, 1st Baronet (and I don't believe TNA has a copy), and also browse the Jellicoe papers deposited there. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia
I'm unimpressed with your recent behaviour. I had a much higher opinion of you prior to your recent actions; particularly considering that after having reverted ALL of my recent contributions, you then proceeded to re-implement most of them.

Surely you've seen enough of my activity to know what I do is thought out and well considered? If you don't agree with it, you have more than enough experience to know that a note on my talk page will achieve your desired result? A wholesale reversion of several hour's work is NOT appreciated, particularly when you then go and re-implement most of it.

You have successfully alienated a previously staunch supporter. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry you see it that way, particualrly with the date unlinking, the best way to make sure I got them all was to do a revert - and in the lead you had left duplicate info in the first and last paragraphs, and (as it seemed to me) made it a bit disjointed. As I understand it, just saying "to date" is discouraged, because it's immediately rendered incorrect when the VC (Australia) is awarded and so on.  David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I see it that way too. As I said, "I had a much higher opinion of you prior to your recent actions". I would rather have that opinion restored than continue to be disappointed. I hope this is a simple mis-understanding.
 * Also, I'm irritated at myself that I also don't quite understand some of your reply.
 * "particualrly with the date unlinking, the best way to make sure I got them all was to do a revert"
 * Sorry, I don't understand. That you got all what? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater gets rid of the bathwater, but seems to somewhat distort priorities!
 * "and in the lead you had left duplicate info in the first and last paragraphs, and (as it seemed to me) made it a bit disjointed."
 * Well yes, some might have come to that conclusion. (Maybe even me.) But surely "fixing" it would have been a better option than "reverting" it?
 * "As I understand it, just saying "to date" is discouraged, because it's immediately rendered incorrect when the VC (Australia) is awarded and so on"
 * Perhaps. But having three occurrences in the article of the phrase "as at June 2008" (particulaly when it is now August) seems a much inferior option. Let's face it, Canada, NZ and Oz all decided to go their own merry way in the 1990s, and in the last almost 20 years by 3 nations, NZ is the ONLY one to have awarded a VC, and they've awarded only one. (Some Australian politicians tried to award one to our iconic "Simpson and his donkey", who actually has millions of coins with his effigy on them in circulation, but it was decided that this would be a "dangerous precedent"!!) I don't see any Oz VC being awarded anytime soon! So yes, "it's immediately rendered incorrect when the VC (Australia) is awarded", but that hasn't happened in the last 20 years, whereas "as at July 2008" is already out-of-date.


 * OK, so I've had my rant. But I'm still annoyed that you reverted my edits rather than built on them ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You hadn't unlinked all the dates, at the time, I was about to go out to work, the easisest way to get the article consistent again was to go back to the previous version, which also (as I saw it at the time) had the advantage of getting rid of duplication in the lead, and having the opportunity to puts things back together in a way that seemed to flow better - had I merely done it in one operation you'd never have known, but I pressed save instead of preview as I was trying to sort things out. As I say I was in a hurry, and failed to deal with the situation as well as I might. (I note we still have linked dates in several references, so the article is still a bit of a mish-mash, personally I'm not entirely convinced by the unlinking arguments, and it probably would have been better to have left them linked until a consensus had been established)  On the "to date" etc issue see WP:DATE, using "as of" is encouraged, it makes it clear when the data was last checked (though perhps in this particular case there are enough people watching the article that any award is likely to be picked up pretty quickly) looking further I see there's now a template undefined which automatically categorises articles containing the statements to make sure they're updated in a timely fashion.  David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. So we're back to simple coincidences rather than deliberate malicious intent. I suppose I should have assumed-good-faith, but in the circumstances, that wasn't even close to where I was!! I can see your POV, (not that I entirely agree with it), and can live with it.
 * So where do you want to go from here? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. One occurrence of "as of" seems reasonable, but three? To me, one "as of", and two "to date"s seems a superiour option. But as you say, "in this particular case there are enough people watching the article that any award is likely to be picked up pretty quickly", so it's something of a pointless debate anyway, and henceforth on this point I'll just sit back and watch. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

John Emilius Fauquier
Thanks to your help, this article passed into GA status today. You really did some heavy lifting on this one, thanks. :) Protonk (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Scherger
If you look at the refs which were already in the article, we've already got refs for his decorations there in the form of the original London Gazettes, and also from his personnel file and other sources. In this particular case, it might make more sense to reuse those, rather than using It's An Honour. David Underdown (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair comment. Feel free to change them as you feel appropriate. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will quickly admit that I'm "underwhelmed" by the "It's an Honour" citation text! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NRA template
Aha! I recognised your name from Your Archives... In case you're interested, I've created Template:NRA to link into the NRA. Comments very welcome. You might also be interested in a list of individual people prominent in NRA who lack ODNB or wikipedia bios (though I've been stubbing them): I've put it up on my user page. Cheers, Dsp13 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI
The "Copernicus was Polish astronomer" routine is a hallmark of User:Serafin's sockpuppets. I have already blocked User:Apptas accordingly. If you see such vandalism in the future, report it straight to WP:AIV and/or WP:SSP. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Percy Scott
Thanks for your input. I've only been assessing articles for a couple of days, so it will probably take me a while to get an idea of the relative standards of the articles. I actually did think hard about whether to pass the citations part of it, maybe I should have thought harder. Lawrencema (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ranks
I was going through the list of air aces, making slight improvments to some, and I do not believe ranks should be placed before a person's name in the lead unless they are of General/Flag/Air Officer rank. The final rank that person held should be covered in the infobox and later in the body paragraphs, making no need for it to be displayed before the name. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ribbons discussion
Minor point - you didn't "sign" the paragraph you added after "PalawanOz (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)", which is no big deal, but it did cause me a little confusion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PipeOrgan needs you!
Hi everyone.

In case you haven't spotted it, Pipe organ is a featured article candidate. If any of you can lend a hand to address the concerns, the WikiProject PipeOrgan would be indebted to you. The article itself is in pretty good shape, there are some concerns about the referencing at the moment, so if you have any reliable sources that may be useful, please have a look at the article.

Many thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Blarney
Hi David, I was trying to work out how to become familiar with, and work out how to make use of the London Gazette, so I was looking at Thomas Blamey. Comment: References 1, 12 & 13 repeatedly come up with "An unexpected error occurred while processing your request." Question: Reference 4 (DSO) - I can't find mention of either Blamey OR Blarney. What am I doing wrongly? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough explanation. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another OCR amusement
By-the-way: Thanks to OCR, poor Allen Hjelmfelt is also known as Alien Hjelmfelt! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Harris
Kudos on finding out so much about Mike Harris. Do you think you could find out anything about a "Lieutenant Christopher Hugh Trevor CLAYTON, Royal Navy" please? Would these; help? Cheers mate Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Found these; as well. Any idea what they're about?  Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers mate, Clayton was Lynx pilot during the Falklands. He got a Mention in Dispatches for evading an attack by 2 Arg Daggers, I thought this would warrant a stub like similar Harris'. Also I thought I would expand upon this theme by adding this story to the "Operational History" section of the Lynx article, although I may have a hard time of it due to pissing off the guys who hang around there, so setting up a stub might add weight to my argument for inclusion. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know he'd made it to Vice Admiral, assumed he'd retired at Rear. Do u have a link to that PDF from the Iranian seizure article please, I can't find the one you mean. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I found it, do u mean the 2006 one? Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any idea what pce, psc, hcsc mean? I think maybe HCSC, dunno about PCE, and what do u think of this lol. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers 4 the help mate. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the Best Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Passed Command Exams, Passed Staff Course and Higher Command and Staff Course.
 * ALR (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Danial Joseph Sheehan
Thank you for your useful "tweaks" and retrieved ex-links. Just one point: his biography is a transcript of that officially recorded in the British War Office publication "Soldiers Died in the Great War" which uses the term "He met his death on .. etc." I would prefere to keep the original version even if expressed differently today, hope you can bear with this ? GretingsOsioni (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI Date formats
I see that you recently changed a date in Brian Horrocks from 7 September to September 7. But have you noticed that whichever way you type it, it always turns out the same, thus 7 September and September 7 (click on the edit tag to see that although these look the same on the screen, the underlying typing is different). So save yourself the effort of all those extra edits, it doesn't matter which way round they are typed! Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics 2012
Hi there. I have responded to the disagreement that you and User:MissOrgum1996 have been having regarding the 2012 Summer Olympics. I had a bunch to say, but the key point I want to address to both of you is: please take a deep breath, and go for a walk. Step away from the article for a bit to cool down. Prince of Canadat 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I add that you did exactly the right thing by bringing the matter up at the project noticeboards. FYI: 3RR is a very difficult thing to judge, particularly when an editor believes they are trying to repair damage, rather than enter an edit dispute.
 * It's always better to open these matters up to comments from other editors; and to obtain a consensus for proceeding. You've done the right thing in stepping away for a while to let things cool down. Things haven't, so it means you have no involvement, or blame. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem I had last night is that I rather expected there to be more people to be watching the page-I was surprised that the initial deletions didn't get picked up by other people as well, and then the talk thread only picked up one other contributor to start with. I should have picked up on 1996 being a potential indication of age, and stressed the policies of verifiability and so on a bit more to start with - though in hindsight I'm not sure it would have made much difference.  Maybe I should have just restored my own commetns to the original state, rather than fully reverting (though of course the first time she said she removed an irrelevant commetn on the talk page, she actually deleted the entire thread-which I rather assumed was just a newbie error).  David Underdown (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think she would have understood any explanations. The combination of ideology+language barrier=insurmountable difficulty.  You did very well; you were absolutely more calm than I would have been, for sure. Prince of Canadat 08:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Pattisson
Hi David,

Thanks very much for improving the wording on Rodney Pattisson. I tried it a few times, but due to my poor English, I just couldn't get it right...thanks for the edit. Seth Whales (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Merle Norman
Hi, David Underdown. Thank you for your contributions to the article Alfred Merle Norman. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 08:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Victoria Cross recipients by Campaign
You wouldn't happen to know why this doesn't add up would you? I have checked one source I have and it says 522 before WWI (which is reflected in the list) 13 since WW2 (reflected in the list) and the correct figures for WW1 and WW2. What I cannot work out is why the list is adding up to 1360 instead of 1356. I suspect this is reflected in the WW1 list and I have a comprehensive gazette link for that, but I wondered if you could work it out? I have a book being returned to me tommorrow which might shed some light on it... Regards. Woody (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have narrowed it down to either the WWI or WWII lists, I suspect the WWI list, though there are two names missing from the WWII list which I am trying to work out now. The number at the top is correct but two recipients are missing, and have been since Chapman created the list in 2004. Now I have to go through both lists one by one and check with my index. Have been checking it for the last two hours, laborious work involving spreadsheets! Regards. Woody (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am almost through the WWII list, I have found a couple missed out, Kenneth Campbell being one. Originally the WWI list said 627 WWI recipients but several sources I have read have said 633/634 WWI recipients. The only way to clear it up is to go through the comprehensive Gazette entry/Index I've got (Max Arthur) one by one and work it out. Woody (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, my WWI spreadsheet is simply a copy of the Wikipedia page List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients put into a spreadsheet; I then check it with Max Arthur's book which is very comprehensive and includes all recipients. So I don't think it would be much help if I did sent it to you. The numbers add up for me now and all are covered in the campaign list. This will be triple-checked when I get round to the individual lists. I am going through them one by one as you may have noticed.
 * Could you try and find any information on Charles Pearson (soldier)? My searches are coming up a bit fruitless at the moment, he must be Gazetted for something. Oh and any comments at the FLC for the Indian Mutiny recipients list would be much appreciated as always. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Pearson, I will try and expand it tommorrow, I just got back from an incredibly boring Villa game so will use them all tommorrow. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only article I can find on Times is his obit. (The Times, Monday, Oct 04, 1909; pg. 13; Issue 39081; col D) All the others seem to be letters to the editor? If you give me the dates I should be able to find them. Thankyou very much for all your help. Just in case, I will e-mail you so you have my address. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce
Could you please give me one valid reason for your [] deletion?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

David, if the one thing you objected was my "poor formatting" of my references, rather than the added text itself, then let me say this.

First of all, one should read the added text itself first to scan for any abnormalities or vandalisms. And when that is done, you scan for any abnormalities or vandalisms in the "referencing" on the article page. When things look fine, one should leave it at that. That's what I do. If one has to be super-dooper meticulous, accurate, precise, uncompromisingly rigid, inflexible, achtung-achtung, orthodox, de riguer and spick and spam, as you have shown you are in your reinstatement or re-arrangement of my text, then may I suggest the best way to go about it, is to carry out a little D-I-Y yourself and fix it for love for the poor illiterate ignoramus, in this case, moi. I do think however, that the worst thing to do, is to completely delete someone's addition, lock, stock and barrel. If you know what I mean. Ignoramus Git Who Doesn't Know How to Format References signing off. BTW, lighten up will ya. BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Recruiting Serjeant
The libretto calls it a Musical entertainment, and I' m not sure about calling it a ballad opera - don't ballad operas have to have dialogue? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not that worried about it, really - it's a pretty minor work, in all honesty, but, hey, I had the sources and an illustration for it, so, why not? =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a couple sources calling it a burletta - that seems pretty spot-on. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's more because there's an intersection, I think, than that the terms are equivalent. The very slight plot of The Recruiting Serjeant would seem odd in comparison to the standard ballad operas, but is almost expected with a burletta. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions, and Happy Editing! - Mailer Diablo 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 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) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Scherger - A question
Sorry to bother you. A question. "(merge refs)" - I'm always in favour of "merge refs", but I'm not particularly familiar with the template. One of those refs was LondonGazette|issue=40163|startpage=2617|date=30 April 1954|supp=yes. The other was LondonGazette|issue=40163|startpage=2617|date=30 April 1954|supp=x Is "supp=yes" the same as "supp=x"? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'd forgotten that you'd already mentioned that. And yes, "Saying "yes" just seems to be a bit more intuitive" to me too. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic articles
Hi there. I'm not sure I have all the Olympic articles on my watchlist - yesterday evening there was a POV and POINTy attack on the articles, with unsubstantiated accusations of doping. I protected some of the articles, blocked a few IPs and it died down, for the moment. Can I ask you to let me know if there are any further problems of that type - unless they're ref'd accusations, then they're a breach of 'biography of living persons' policy - and I'll block the buggers! Kbthompson (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was sheer idiocy - there's always these allegations about any successful cyclist - but with living bio, any such thing needs to be substantiated. It's not good enough to say 'everybody knows' - 'cos they don't and anyway, it probably isn't true ... Kbthompson (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo Discussion-
Sorry-re:Waterloo page edit- its my first time in the Wikipedia 'working' culture vaults -still learning the process- hopefully I don't like it too much or I'll be in danger of never seeing the light of day again. :( --Joey123xz (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Thanks for the info on the layout of "see also," etc., templates. I must have picked up the bad habit I mentioned in my edit summary at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and, unfortunately, I've been operating under it for some time; now I'll have to go off and fix all the errors I've made! Ah well, more work, but at least this time it'll be right. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Hallowell Carew
Thanks for adding the Gazette and DNB citations, which were the main thing needed for verifiability throughout. I don't have online DNB access and I'd not stumbled on the online Gazette before: invaluable! Cheers, Ka renjc 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RAF Regiment page
I removed certain parts in the discussions and reverted some of the page back because they were obviously placed in there by members in the British Army trying to discredit what the RAF Regiment does. I don't have a problem if the point they have made is a valid one, I had left them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.76.249 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Chadwick
Thanks for the note. You're right, he has been sat there a while. I rarely get the time to GA review these days, so when I do I try to take one of the older articles. Anyhow, I won't rush ahead with the review if you're not going to be available. I'll post it up at some point over the next few days, and (if it does go to a GA hold) won't worry if nothing happens until next week. All the best, EyeSerene talk 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

William Leeke
Hey, thanks for your additions to William Leeke. They're great references, which I hadn't found. Thanks also for the copyediting and ref formatting: much appreciated. Gwinva (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the clergy database existed, so that's a useful source (shame it doesn't go later, to trace all his sons). I've used the Gazette to trace officers before, but didn't know there was a  citation template: certainly makes things easy.  I've found his original commission, and also resolved the Ceylon Regiment issue: he sold out a couple of months later.  It seems he exchanged to a full pay posting so he could sell the commission.  I can't find any reference to this in his memoirs, however.  Anyway, thanks for your interest. Gwinva (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Red face, feeling slightly stupid): Leeke joined in 1815 not 1814, just a few weeks before Waterloo. The "1814" was an unnoticed typo on my part.  Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase, but thanks for pointing it out!  Enjoy your wikibreak.  Gwinva (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and the sons. The clergy page named the sons, which was helpful, as I had only traced two: John Cox Leeke (bishop) and Edward Tucker Leeke (Second Wrangler Cambridge, sub-dean Lincoln Cathedral).  Anyway, with the new found names, I discovered in the Times that Henry was  a notable athlete (no idea of his profession,  though), and father of an Olympian.  The other son Samuel remains to be discovered: I wondered if he was a clergyman as well, given the clerical nature of the family. I came to William Leeke from the 52nd Foot, but I've found his church involvement quite fascinating.  His Jesus Lane Sunday School evolved into CICCU, eventually. .  All the family have been involved down the line, it seems. (btw, how did you find my new article?  From DYK?) Gwinva (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

query re national register of archives
Template:NRA uses the id in the url, e.g. P26286 for Edith Sitwell at nra. But I've been given pause by the fact that this url apparently reflects a 'former' id (here 'GB/NNAF/P162148   (Former ISAAR ref: GB/NNAF/P26286)') - do you know if a shift to urls accessed by the newer id is imminent? Dsp13 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Neville Howse / Surgeon General
It's arguable whether it's a rank or the name of the appointemnt - from other gazette entries I've seen it does surgeon-general does at this time seem to have been used for anyone in the Medical Corps ranked higher than colonel (compare with the naval practice which still distinguishes those in medical and dental professions as surgeon-(rank)), but I was in two minds as to whether to change that one or not at the time, so I'll leave it alone. David Underdown (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. I didn't realise it was arguable. (I've never heard of such a rank - especially not in the Australian Army. Title, yes, but not rank.) However, there are libraries full of books of information I don't know, so I'll defer to anyone who can provide evidence of any opinion on the topic! i.e. I'll leave it alone too. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Misc VCs
Thanks for the note about the WWII VCs, I will remember to call on you when it comes to that list, almost up to there now, I've got Second Boer War before then. I intend to do WWI last as that will need splitting into three or four separate lists due to it's size I imagine. In terms of Chelmsford, I agree with you on mentioning him earlier: about how he went in without official authority, but haven't quite found the wording yet. I was thinking of adding it in around where "unopposed" is at the moment. What do you think? Regards. Woody (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Marines
Fill your boots then but the piece looks poor from the very start due to your input. I do not see the point in adding text just to add links but maybe thats just me. I was under the impression that the side bar was there to avoid these issues (Archangel1 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)).

GA pass
Thank you for your hard work on Henry Chadwick (theologian). I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect the new status.

That also means you get one of these:

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting   into the page code.

Great job - well done! It's been a pleasure working with you, and I hope to do so again. EyeSerene talk 11:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

VC
Please have a look at Talk:Victoria Cross. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Harold Challenor
Hi, Thanks for getting involved. I'm slightly disappointed that we're only rated Start class. Obviously to get to the top ratings, we would need someone to read some of the books and not jut rely on what's online, but I think this is a good basic summary of the facts. I decided to omit thing such as his birth place, other work, marriage and continued friendly relations with the SAS as not really pertinent to the two main areas of interest would you have ncluded them?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC) (Gallery Proms season ticket holder)

RE:Posthumous VCs
Reading through the original warrant again, there is no specific statement for or against posthumous awards (indeed "Sixthly. It is ordained, with a view to place all persons on a perfectly equal footing in relation to eligibility for the Decoration, that neither rank, nor long service, nor wounds, nor any other circumstance or condition whatsoever, save the merit of conspicuous bravery shall be held to establish a sufficient claim to the honour." could be taken as saying that death in action shouldn't matter). Perhaps we should re-word the statemetns about posthumous awards slgihtly, as it does seem to have been purely a matter of policy, not of bening constrained by the warrant as such. David Underdown (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the tardiness of reply, I am really busy at the moment. Perhaps something along the line of "...the warrant was not clear on the issue of posthumous awards until 1920, although official policy was to not award the VC posthumously. This was partially reversed in 1902 and completely reversed in 1907, whilst the Warrant was officially amended in 1920 to explicitly allow posthumous awards." Sound about right? Woody (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrones, Dominations
Thanks for catching my senior moment in this. Devonshire, forsooth! (Bangs head repeatedly on cabinet full of incunabula.) Ka renjc 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a copy of Amanda Foreman's Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire placed fairly prominently amongst the books on the shelf directly above the screen in my study here. That's my excuse, anyway.  Ka renjc 09:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

VC (again)
Hi David. I know "winner" is not uncommon usage, but one doesn't "win" a VC, it's not a competition. One "earns" a VC. One is "awarded" a VC. And when one receives it, one becomes a "recipient". (Not a "winner".) "Winning" is usually associated with being the end-product / goal of doing something. In the case of a VC, the medal is/was neither the goal nor the end product of the act, (particularly if the recipient died in the process). So, that's my 2¢ worth. What are your thoughts on the matter? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, even the MOD uses winner wehn referring to GC and VC - certainly in one of the cases taht was altered it was for instructions on how to navigate through a website, so the terminology should be left as the website itself uses it. Recipient just seems very stilted, holder might be better, but winner has been the consensus version for a long time - it's been discussed on teh talkpage before.  David Underdown (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, recipient does seem a bit clumsy; I would have preferred a different word. But "winner" just doesn't seem appropriate. The first time I read the article I was surprised to see that "winner" had made it through the reviews; one day I'll dig through the archives and see how/why it did. Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Error Fixing "skilfully"
The bot changed 'skilfully' to 'skillfully'. See revision history for Edmund Herring. This is wrong; the former is the correct English spelling (See Wiktionary entry) Please don't do this per WP:ENGVAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, the OED gives skillful as "chiefly U.S." David Underdown (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my dictionary says "skillful (US)" as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gaah! Thanks for that guys. I really should have spotted that for myself. I've removed the substitution and added a regression test in case I ever try to add skil(l)ful(ly) rules to the bot again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 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) 22:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tate directors
Thanks for your contributions. Dates formats should be consistent within the article: you're mixing numerical with day-month-year. I don't think it's necessary to add the sub-heading for a newspaper article, as it makes the ref section more cluttered. For an article retrieved from findarticles.com, saying "(archived from the original at http://www.independent.co.uk)" is not necessary as it repeats information, and misleading, because it goes to the newspaper home page, where there's no mention of the obit and it was never on that page in the first place. It is not a good idea to duplicate an existing ref for information, if the existing one covers the ground properly. The London Gazette may be more appropriate in the external links section in some cases.  Ty  23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

R3
Thanks for keeping an eye on this. There are various ragged bits (formatting) which will need tidying up when I've got the article into a basic shape but for the moment I'm concentrating on the information. Next section will need a bit of hard thought, especially as 'Envy' has come to an end... Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivor McIntyre
You're certainly on good terms with the old Gazette, David - naturally I looked there while composing the article to see if I could find anything on this chap's AFC (didn't even know he had a Bar to it as well) but do you think I had any luck? Be interested to know your method, since a search on the surname and decoration between 1917 and 1928 (and indeed just the surname in that range) yielded nought for yours truly...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:VC portal
I have been thinking about that for a while now and I think it would be a good idea. Recipients themselves, recipients lists, battles involved etc could all be useful topics. There is absolutely no precedent for including the external reviews into the mainspace lists, it is just not done, and I don't think it should be done. I have been watching Bryce's efforts with interest, and have been reviewing where I can. There are other forms of recognition, and a portal is one of those I suppose. I might start sandboxing one up soon. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Garrett Anderson
You seem to have cited about 20 Gazette documents for each reference; is one not enough? It looks a tad messy. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But for the sake of editing and viewing? The references section looks messy, and editing around a string of 12 near-identical reference tags is very difficult. Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The article gives "He served as a board member from 1921 to 1946" the London Gazette says "every time the board was reconstituted from 1921 to 1946, Alan Garrett Anderson was stuck on it". It makes the whole thing devilish to edit and read, and is completely unneeded. Ironholds (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a question of reducing reliability. A single Gazette reference is worth little less than 12 references from the Gazette on the same thing. All you need is one saying "He was appointed as a board member on X" (so the 1921 one). The others don't say anything that and the ODNB don't (that he served from '21 to '46. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Kingsbury
Thanks for the copy-edit! This article has been improving and every bit helps! :D Regarding the Gazette Quote, I initially removed it because I felt it dwarfed the actual content of the article, being distracting for the reader. While the article has grown, I'm not sure if the Gazette quote is in the right place. What do you think? Cheers! \ / (⁂) 09:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I'm contacting him now. Again, the quote fits in with the other articles due to their size. I'm sure once the Kingsbury article grows the quote will become less 'dominating'. Thanks! \ / (⁂) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent move of Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty
Hi David,

I see that you recently moved the page Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty to Lords Commissioner of the Admiralty. However, the latter term is grammatically incorrect (mismatch of plural and singular) and the correct plural appears to be Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, as given in the lead sentence of the article and also List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. That is the title to which the page should have been moved, which at the time consisted only of a redirect back to Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty. But after your move, the Redirect fixer came by, fixing the double redirect and causing a stuck redirect.

I've moved the page over the stuck redirect (now deleted) to the correct plural, but ended up having to fix all of the double-redirects myself manually (I'm not sure why Redirect fixer didn't fix them this time). Thanks in advance for exercising more caution in page moves in the future.

--Seattle Skier (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Clayton McClure has an impact on history
The society of Clayton McClure has asked that you replace the esteemed article of our leader. Clayton McClure has had a larger impact on history than anyone else in the history of this planet. Please allow us to finish our article in peace. We have the same rights as anyone else does. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzboygt (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

8H
Thanks for tidying up after me over the last couple of days. I really appreciate it. I've had to temporarily stop on 8H because I've run out of sources. I had sent an e-mail to a mate who was one of the last to be recruited before amalgamation because I knew he had all three volumes of the history (vol 3 is very rare and hard to come by) turns out he's gifted them to HHQ so I'm going to have to e-mail the RegSec and see if he'll feed me some snippets to take away the brevity of Arron Bevington-King's snappy prose for the reggie website where a lot of it was lifted from. Bear with me. Did you like the pictures btw? Took them myself. Got a picture of the 4H memorial too which I'll post on the appropriate article. Thunderer (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names
Are you happy with the latest proposal here? Your views would be appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures in Infoboxes
Can you please point me in the right direction for the guidelines, I was not aware there were a separate set for Military History and I could not see anything in the main guidelines that was relevant. I really don't want to go round upsetting people so would appreciate some direction on this. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

VC stuff
Hi David. I think there is a strong link between Chavasse, Martin-Leake and Upham, as they all won dual VCs. This should be emphasised in these articles plus the main VC article. To win a double VC is probably bigger than twice one VC, as the second VC would have been looked at much more closely than the first (only my opinion, but I hope you'd agree). For all who are interested in the VC, special interest remains in double VC winners. I think you'd also agree that all three performed "phonomenal" feats to earn their medals. PS: Thanks for your changes to the Upham article. You have standardised the references and also made the text more diplomatic. Wallie (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

VC numbers
I'm surprised there has been no reaction to this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not a high priority. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)