User talk:David Underdown/Archive 5

Perkshire=Perthshire?
David, thank you so much for helping to clean up and add material to Alexander Scotland and its scratch pad predecessor. I was curious about something, not being knowledgeable about the UK: Scotland says his family came from "Perkshire." Can I assume that is an alternate spelling of Perthshire? Stetsonharry (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the book and, sure enough, found that I had misquoted the good Colonel. I saw to my horror that he did indeed say "Perthshire," not the mythical and nonexistant hamlet of "Perkshire." Thanks so much for your sharp eye! Stetsonharry (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett
You've done a lot of work clearing up my articles after me (and my apologies for that); would you be able to take a look at this article and update the rating on the talkpage? I feel bad about doing it myself as I hardly have an objective viewpoint (even though it is about a judge, heh). Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

VC vs GC
Re: VC vs GC, I have NO idea what the "right" answer is - there are two equally authorative (I assume) sources that contradict each other. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#VC_vs_GC. I have to admit I no longer care which is "right", I just want to determine what is the "right" answer ... As they say in the WWII RAF films: "Over to you blue leader." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav box size and location
Please comment on this debate here. We are attempting establish a consensus on wide, vertical nav boxs. -- Secisek (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks, David, for your edit to Hermione, Countess of Ranfurly. I really appreciate this as well as all the other very helpful contributions you have made to articles I have watchlisted including William. I can't quite believe that in writing the article I didn't pursue the OBE thing further, but unfortunately, the links you added to the London Gazette don't work. Not sure why. Do you have any idea? --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

quotes & italics
G'day David! Attached to this edit you made the comment: "quotes shouldn't be in italics." I'm interested by that comment, because I have expended not inconsiderable effort in putting quotes in to italics, in the belief that "quotes should be in italics". Please can you set me on the "straight and narrow" before I waste any more of my own time, and annoy more people! With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Coningham
Thanks David. You are sensible as usual. I agree with the nationality issue and have changed it to remove all that Australian-New Zealander stuff, which is wrong anyway, as you mentioned. It is important to say he was born in Australia, moved to New Zealand and joined the army, then joined the RFC, etc. Wallie (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Oz GC list
Hi David. Thanks for your comments on the above. I have moved your comments onto my talk page to sit with those of Woody; both of which I think I have addressed. If you wish to leave further comments on the article before I launch it into the mainspace, then you are very welcome to do so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Haileybury
Thanks for your input on the name - all help is certainly appreciated. Mycroft (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

William Sudell
Thanks for your additions about William Sudell's military career. I had no idea that records of his service in the Volunteer Force would be in the public domain. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

VC metal
Me again. Personally, I don't think the reliability of the source is the major issue. Quite simply, I just don't see what value it adds. This person seems to think it's important and valuable information, but I don't really see why. (i.e. Why is it important that the metal is difficult to work with?) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Norman Biggs
Wow, thanks for your great input, this article looks far better due to your work. His middle name Mitchell is probably correct. I have two books that reference his middle name, the first gave Witchell(?), the second the initials N.H. Biggs. So there is obvious confusion. Mitchell gets my vote. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for more great work on the military side of yet another Welsh rugby player. Appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment. Black Kite 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit
I am puzzled at your decision to undo my recent edit to Captain (United Kingdom), at least based on your edit summary. I am well aware that Captain (disambiguation) redirects to Captain. However, my edit summary specifically referred to WP:D, which expressly states that use of the (disambiguation) redirect is preferred when there is an intentional link to a disambiguation page, as here. Why do you object to following this policy? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi David, just wondering if you'd picked up my email. I wouldn't have bothered chasing this except my experience with wiki email is limited, so I wasn't sure if you'd got it. Feel free to reply whenever is convenient, or respond through my own email function. ttfn, Benea (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't actually appear to have your email enabled at the moment. Benea (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevill Maskelyne Smyth
Any chance you could help out with the copyvio question for this article please? Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sorted this, I removed a copy of paragraphs from the aussie biog. I'll rewrite and readd when I have time. Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Henry Wells
Hi David. Thanks for the offer; that sounds great. It is quite unusual as the recommendations for awards to Australians during the First World War possessed by the Australian War Memorial holds the full recommnedation/citation, while the Second World War/Korean War/Malayan Emergency are only award cards with a few brief/vague words on why the award was made. When ever you are able and willing, you are welcome to add any information available to my sandbox on Wells. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi David. Is there any information on Wells' DSO awarded for his actions during the Second Battle of El Alamein? The official history of Australia during the Second World War only mentions him a few times just prior to and early on during the First Battle, and then nothing during the Second Battle. The Australian Dictionary of Biography and AWM record card does not have much information on him or his actions during the Second Battle either, so it'll be left a little vague in the article at the moment on why the award was made. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Malbork
I noticed you reverted the "massgrave" section from the Malbork castle article. Maybe You're interested in this NYTimes article, there are several others at the Malbork town article (just in case you didn't believe it). However I think it's rather something to be mentioned only at the Malbork article, not a second time at Malbork castle. Thank's HerkusMonte (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas_Hamilton
David is that you who raised the questions about the promotion dates of Douglas Hamilton? comments were unsigned but I found you in History. Good observation! very obscure. I wish more readers of my articles were so alert.

I hadn't noticed another Douglas Hamilton about that time. My dates came from p. xxxix in the preface of his autobiogaphy: Records of Sport in Southern India.... Perhaps there was another Douglas Hamilton or maybe the autobiography dates are wrong. I don't know, It's hard to argue with the London Gazette, but I will stick with the autobiography dates for now.--Marcus (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the only I used, showing The undermentioned Lieutenant-Generals to be Generals on the Unemployed Supernumerary List: Douglas Hamilton, Madras Infantry. This Gazette ref does agree with the autobiography, but is not on your list of refs.

However, this page also by chance shows The undermentioned Lieutenant-Colonels to be (promoted) Colonels :—on the Retired List. G. J.,Hamilton, the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles). Dated l0th December, 1888. This is obviously not our man however.

Autobiography dates are referenced from 'Quarterly Indian Army List of 1891'. Perhaps Hamilton's brother Edward who was editor of this 1892 autobiography made a transcription error from the 1891 Army list? I could not find it online to check. Do you have access to that? --Marcus (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Deane-Drummond
You're entirely right - well spotted! I'd seen the citation and assumed it to be for the MC - I need to pay more attention... Shimgray | talk | 18:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Russell Foskett
Hi David. I am currently working on the biography of Australian Second World War flying ace Russell Foskett in my sandbox here. However, I am clueless on why he was Mentioned in Despatches and awarded the OBE. None of the sources I have at hand state why either award was made, and I was wondering if you would be willing to have a look through the UK National Archives to see if there is any information in there? If you are too busy or would prefer not to, then that is fine; please do not feel obligated to do this. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger; that's a shame. I figured the OBE would have been for his service as a squadron leader, too, but I couldn't find anything definite that confirms this. Thanks for having a look, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas_Hamilton
David, Thanks for checking the Lists. I've incorporated the Gazettes's dates into the article. Please check to see that I transcribed correctly. Conflicting dates still are unexplained. Autobiography dates are from 'Quarterly Indian Army List of 1891'. (see:Hamilton, p. xxxix) Did/can you check that one?--Marcus (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RAF Abbreviations
The RAF, in comparison to the RN and the Army, is a young service (it's 91st anniversary will be on 1 April this year), so I suppose it takes time for these things to be ironed out! During WWII there were a number of abbreviations in use for the RAF ranks, but these have now been unified as is shown on Wikipedia and are set out in a military publication called JSP 101. I suppose it's a bit like how spelling changes over time, but I feel that if we're writing new articles and editing old ones it would be a good idea to standardize them. This would be especially useful to people who are new to RAF history; by having standardized abbreviations they would be able to compare like with like. Thanks --KizzyB (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

National Archives
Hey David. Sorry to bother you, but a few months back you posted a link on the MILHIST talkpage where the National Archives had released a whole whack of Cabinet Office and other records - I think it was even a seperate website for it all. I bookmarked the website for my MA Dissertation research, but I've had to format my laptop and lost the link. I was wondering if you had the link to hand? I'd like to look the website over and see what I can use before making a physical trip to London to visit the Archives. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, David, a real help. And thanks for the citation info for Hopkinson; I was struggling to find him in the Gazette. Skinny87 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see your emaail David, so I thought I'd post here. I'm at the Archives for a few days this week to do some research, and was wondering, if you're working tomorrow or wednesday, whether you'd like to meet up? I wouldn't mind buying you a drink in that cafe on the ground floor if you have a few moments free. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: London Gazette
Thank you very much for reminding me about the template and the changes you've made. Also, thank you for paying concerns on the articles I've created.^_^--Clithering (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil Lamason
Good to see that we got this article to GA status. Really appreciate your help with its development. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Saul and Wellington
I like your analogy about horses and Irish, etc. I see you go to the proms. I used to too a long time ago. There used to be an Irish guy with his daughter, and she used to get ticket number 1 of the season ticket holder prominaders. She started at age three, and always complained as she was always in front of the conductor and couldn't see the orchestra. I think she was about 10 when I met her. I wonder if they still goe each year. It cost 2.50 pounds for the prom and 2 pounds for the gallery, when I went. Wallie (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for putting the reference for source (which,incidentally, is the one I think I had seen) on how Gail Trimble is doing her thesis on Catullus. I think I had read the article,and it is good to see the article is now sourced. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MOSFLAG
Hi. Which part of WP:MOSFLAG are you referring to in this edit?

Raymond Steed
I just wanted to thank you for all your help with this article. Much, much appreciated!-- Myosotis Scorpioides  15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Valentine Baker
Thanks for the great expansion! I was quite surprised this morning (where I am, UTC -8:00) to see it done up so nicely.  howcheng  {chat} 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Journal
Sorry David, Warwick Uni doesn't seem to have that Journal. If I can help with anything else, please don't hesitate to ask! Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AQ&DJ: If I was at my university I would have access, but am on fieldwork in Africa and very far away from any library with half a hope of having it. Try www.copac.ac to see if it lists it, and if all else fails, contact the librarians at the Joint Services Command and Staff College library. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Empire Ships - M
Whilst not doubting that your info is true, I'm not sure that your source for the amendments to the Empire Morn section of the List of Empire ships - M is a valid one as it is not possible to check the reference without paying a fee. Also, the redirects you created for Empire Morn and SS Empire Morn are not really good ones. All the ships in the various Lists of Empire ships that are currently redlinked are sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, which is why I left them as redlinks. Maybe you'd consider writing the article on the ship? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good news about the redirects. I'm still ploughing my way through the lists of Empire ships atm, T is nearly ready then just one more to do after that covering U - Z, which is why I didn't really want to spend time sorting out Empire Morn. I dare say I'll get round to editing it eventually though. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan's MVO
Thanks to your researches in the archives of the London Gazette the details of Sullivan's award are clear and well documented (which, I may add, they wouldn't have been if one relied only on The Times archive, which uncharacteristically fails to record this honour.) The remark that holders of the fourth class are now LVOs makes me wonder if it is in fact appropriate to use the post-nominal letters MVO for an award made before the LVO/MVO distinction was codified. Might it, perhaps, be more correct to remove the "MVO" from the lead section and rely on the full and clear reference to the honour that we now have in the main body of the text? Interested to know what you think. Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! Thanks very much for that. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Peek
Thanks David ... I'd tried the Gazette but obviously not hard enough! Victuallers (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PIAT
Hey David, thanks for the edits to the PIAT article, very kind of you. Unfortunately, the ODNB ref is coming up with an error, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you have any ideas? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-Ongoing Edit War Shami Chakrabati
I have no recollection of making the post about being a social worker. When I examined the origin of this it appears that the post was made by someone else using my wikipedia name on 19 April 2009 at 14:47 but signing it with my name at 08:19 I have aroused some controversy with my views on the BNP talk page amongst an explicitly racist sub section of the wiki community and I assume that this is a result of that, particularly as 86.143.99.30 (talk) has no proper identifier. This is particularly heinous abuse and what can I do about it?--Streona (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion on Brass instrument
We've probably all done at some time or another, but can you make sure you actually revert toa clean version when you undo a vandal edit? You undid an edit by User:142.33.233.222, but went back to one User:142.33.233.213 (probably actually the same person from the closeness of the IP addresses), which had actually included far more vandalism and deletion of content. David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your right, this kind of chameleon vandalism is the only thing that is rather hard to tackle with Huggle. If i remember well it used to have a feature to detect IP edits from the same IP range, but i assume they disabled it in the lite edition of Huggle.


 * As for correcting it, its rather hard to do so. It would mean that for each edit i would have to check the recent history of that page, which most times is not tainted by this form of vandalism. This would create a lot of overhead for very little results. As of such i only check the page history if it is a heavily vandalized article, or if i spot the edit by chance. Other then that, the time investment just would not prove to be efficient, compared to results Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Epsom OOB
Absolutely agree with your suggestion .......however, not sure why you sought my opinion since I don't think I've ever contributed to the page! Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your page ust seemed to be where the discussion was at, and I think I did get a bit confused as to who had actually authored what. David Underdown (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

List of British gallantry awards for Operation Granby
As far as the dates go, I thought I read somewhere that dates on wikipedia were supposed to be in the form: "May 11 2009", rather than "11 May 2009". I myself prefer "11 May 2009" (the way you have been changing the dates in the above article), but I created those dates in the first place because I thought they had be done that way. What's the deal? Mr Pillows (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed that my signatute uses the form "11 May 2009", so I guess that clears that up...

William Coltman
You reinstated the words in italics in the sentence 'the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces' claiming that it's important. I sort of agree with you but the way you have it worded implies that there is a higher award for gallantry that can be awarded for conduct not in the face of the enemy, when we both know that there isn't.

The important thing is that the VC can only be awarded for valour in the face of the enemy as is made clear in the lead paragraph of the article on the VC.

Therefore expressing 'in the face of the enemy' in an article for a VC recipient is almost tautologous and as it's not in every article about a VC winner, inconsistent. NtheP (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, or has been in most of the articles on VC winners. Th epoint is not that there is a higher award, but that the George Cross is the equivalent for actions not in the face of the enemy, and recipients are accorded essentially equal honour.  David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As per its original warrant the GC ranks next to the VC not alongside it and there is therefore an order of precedence (that's not to say that I don't agree with you that holders of either should be treated with equal honour) and wikipedia articles need to reflect the fact that there is a order of precedence. Tautology aside and I'm not going to argue that point any further I would just feel more comfortable with a wording along the lines of 'The VC is the highest award for gallantry. It can only be awarded for action in the face of the enemy.'  That to me eliminates the implication that there are other higher awards. NtheP (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been gone into a number of times, in the order of wear (which is subtly different from an Order of Precedence, eg Order of precedence in England and Wales, which is about social standing, no decoration confers precedence in that sense), it is ranked next after becasue you can't have things on the same level, and it has a later creation date (just as elsewhere in the Order of Wear you see that the DSC is ranked above the MC and DFC). However in terms of the actual "level" of the awards, the MOD defines them both as "Level One" awards, and where you have people such as Matthew Croucher gettign the GC I find it very hard not to think of them as equivalent.  David Underdown (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the arguments about equivalence or otherwise are set out here, with links to some of the previous discussions. The latest discussion of a more or less standard wording for the lead of articles about VC winners is here, which came down in favour (admittedly on a small sample fo people) in making the distinction about in the face of the enemy. David Underdown (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the stuff on equivalence first and I think there are some people missing the point that there is an order of precedence and like it or not it can't be ignored.


 * Personally I think the statement about the VC is misleading for the reasons I stated above but if that's what others in the field have decied upon I'm not going on a one man crusade/edit war (delete as appropriate) to change it. Thanks for the discussion. NtheP (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Subscription Movement
David – Point taken on the Subscription Movement. I'll try and knock something together – perhaps a little bit less POV :-) Regards, Bruce Agendum (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling correction
Correcting mistakes is of course marvellous and many thanks, but please, spare us lesser mortals from your comments. RichyBoy (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it came out more sarcastically than I had intended, no tone of voice or other non-verbal cues here. It's one of those words that do get "hypercorrected".  David Underdown (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Long, Long Trail
Thanks I have just started work on some WWI articles and he seemed a valuable on line source --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I need to read up on redirects
Always something I don't yet know. This diff and your edit summary suggest I'm not being as helpful as I intended. Thanks for good modeling; I'll do the reading. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilton
Somewhat confused reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

dates
Re: this edit, how would I use it? (i.e. example please.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ecumenism
Oops, I didn't mean to cut that. My apologies-- Carlaude talk 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

John Wilton
FYI, Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is me adding these alerts useful? Or not? Or don't you care? Please advise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had a look at []. Well summarised. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's bedtime here. It will be "interesting" to see what's there in the morning! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Level of response is somewhat underwhelming. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Steed (again)
Sorry David. You have indeed put a lot of effort into this, and I'll stop asking for deletion on that basis only. To be truthful, I only wrote the original article after a suggestion at a AFD for the book Fledgling Jason Steed. Some editors have now removed all mention of the book, making all the hours/several days I spent on the piece completely worthless. They are also refusing to let me remove the forum references - even though they would never pass muster at GAC or FAC in particular. I was just so frustrated about all this, that I asked for deletion instead. Your kindness, though, in helping to "build" the page was, and still is, very much appreciated by me. I just thought I would try and explain.-- Myosotis Scorpioides  10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was probably the explanation. I think in general mor discussion is needed.  Argument by edit summary is easy to get into (I've done it myself), but rarely effective.  Lay out the connection on the talk page and maybe we'll be able to get somewhere.  David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrick Bailey
Thanks for the additions. I couldn't find the "and Bar" for his DFC either, but it says it in the death notice put in by the family in The Times this week. Possibly a "family story". His brother also got the DFC as a wartime pilot. Johnlp (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Thanks for the note regarding ibids, op cits, etc; I had forgotten. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

William Ruthven
Yes, that is better. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

North Staffordshire Regiment
Thanks for composing the bit about re-organisation of the militia and volunteer battalions. I couldn'tthink of anything suitable. It did raise an interesting point though about did they leave the regiment or not? Which I couldn't really answer. I suppose it depends on the definition of a regiment, which I'm not sure is covered anyway. Certainly not in Regiment. Of course Kings/Queens Regs alsways defines a soldier's unit as his corps regardless of arm of service. Perhaps something to be addressed in the relevant article. NtheP (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that it was just a split between regular and reserve forces, they were just as much a part of the regiment before as after (and how much you felt they really were a part probably depended on whether you were a regular or Special Reserve/TF...). Whether you were regular, SR or TF really only determined how that battalion would be deploye din the event of war, TF battalions could not initially be forced to serve out of the country (hence the territorial name). David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Thorneloe
Do you consider Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe notable? There is loads of news coverage just now so I would say he's worth an article Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I
Yes there was more included in an earlier version, I will try and add something. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just found this which seems a good  source as well. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

James Craig (VC)
I can't find anything in the Gazette for him, any ideas? Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you still a Prommer?
If so where? --Peter cohen (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (bay 16-17 in the gallery)
 * Very much so, usually Arena front leftish, I'm one of the trustees of the charity collection as well. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should arrange to say hello over the next eight weeks. Do you know User:Philip Trueman. He's quite a long term Prommer, and former work colleague of mine who stands front leftish.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Philip well. David Underdown (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Home Fleet
Hi David. Among the material you have access to at TNA, would you have the command organisation of the Home Fleet in its last years - 1966-67? I'm looking for flag officers, flotillas and squadrons, bases, and ships and vessels assigned to each force. Appreciate any pointers you might be able to give. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher
Please don't threaten me with 'beware the 3rr rule, you've been reverted by 3 people', woody and you reverted me, which is 2 people isn't it?, and I've asked to see proof of a quote from Arthur Scargill that he intended to topple a democratically elected government. A serious charge and one that merits care to verify. If you have such a quote please put it on the talk page of the Thatcher article. I mean a quote from Scargill not some yellowing article from the 'express' or 'mail' or 'Telegraph' that says he intended such things. They aren't neutral, they hated him you see? Sayerslle (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Airborne VCs
Hey David, thanks for the help. I thought I'd start with the Arnhem VCs and then go from there. The names I've found so far are: John Baskeyfield, Robert Henry Cain, John Hollington Grayburn and Lionel Ernest Queripel. Anything you can find would be awesome, cheers. Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

South African MC and VC recipients
David - thanks for the additions to 1st SA Infantry Division. If you have time, please see if you can identify some of the MC recipients on 1st Infantry Brigade (South Africa). This data comes from the official S Afr archives, but it may relate to individuals who were awarded their medals whilst living in South Africa, and that they did not necessarily receive them whilst being members of the South African 1st Brigade. Farawayman (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Coggins
Thank you very much for your corrections. I admit to little-to-no knowledge of British military structure and was relying on the sources. It's good to have an expert come in and clean things up. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is up your street ..
Hi David! We have Humphrey de Verd Leigh and Humphry de Verde Leigh. One, probably the latter, needs to be made a redirect, perhaps with a bit of merging, but do you have an unimpeachable source for his correct name? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like de Verd is correct from the London Gazettes currently cited - I also notice that the same user who created the de Verd version of the article also chagned the spelling in the body of the de Verde version, but obviously didn't know how to fix the situation properly. David Underdown (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hey David, I was wondering if you could try and find any gazette search results for Robert Henry Cain‎? I couldn't seem to come up with anything really, I got his initial commission and his VC citation but nothing more. Is that usual for WWII personnel? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks David, I will remember that in future. Is it usual for someone to have the same service number? I note that Renshaw seems to have the same number (gazette link. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

US/UK Spelling
You're indeed correct, there is so much IP vandalism on that article, reverting can be a bit of reflex action. Thanks for catching my error. Regards, Justin talk 11:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher cites
21 July 2009 'It's a reliable source, just because you can't verify easily doesn't mean it should.'   (not grammatical, but get the gist)... You wrote that, now you're having a go at me for not providing a direct link to the foreword to the Manifesto, a bit hypocritical. Sayerslle (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:CITE (and in particular WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), there are certain minimal pieces of information that should be provided, you didn't do this, there were there for the Globe and Mail. David Underdown (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * there were there for the Globe and Mail..you can't even spell properly. Sayerslle (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the web page for the arthur scargill article SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT in the globe and mail anyway? Face it, there is one rule for me cos you hate my politics and there is another rule for your mates, and you can sing in a choir and say, 'oh my family are connected to the Church and I'm Anglican' but to me you're just a right-wing hypocrite.Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can spell, I just can't type. A webpage isn't necessarily required, page numbers etc are. For the Scargill one we had "Crush or compromise", The Globe and Mail (24 July 1984), p. 6.  Now archived copies of The Globe and Mail may not be easy to get hold of, but there is sufficient infomration in that cite to enable anyone who really wants to to easily turn to that article.  Incidentally, while I'm certainly to the right of Scargill I don't think anyone who really knows me would describe me as right-wing, but I don't particularly expect you to believe me. David Underdown (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone who wants to can easily turn to that article would you do that and put the paragraph on the talk page of the Thatcher article. That's what I've wanted to see but I don't know how to  access it. I suspect your claim its easy to access is a f.  lie but if it's so easy please put the relevant sentences on the Thatcher talk page. Why do you need the page number of the foreword to the Manifesto. I just don't believe you asked for that sincerely and you remain a disgrace to your Christian family, do you think Jesus tried to annoy people for no reason? I don't think you should sing in a Christian choir while carrying on so lousily, it's hypocrisy. Sayerslle (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote, I acknowlege taht the archives themselves are not necessarily easy to get hold of, but if someone can, there is sufficient detail to then track down the cited article. Cut out the personal attacks please, we may disagree on content, but there's simply no need for it.  I've tried hard to find alternative sources, though I had nothing to do with adding the content in the first place, but with the attitude you're displaying I just don't see how it's possible to work constructively with you at the moment.  Having never seen the 1979 manifesto I had no idea how big the complete document was or how much of that the foreword formed, or where to even start finding a copy of what's essentially ephemera.  David Underdown (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * if someone can track the archives down, then they can easily read the article...well, yes,...the point is the archive is not available is it...cut out the personal attacks, while you attacked me 'Consensus is against you, not this edit...'having never seen the manifesto'...no, but that really is bloody easy to get to read, so if you'd have taken half a second instead of immediately setting out to persecute me...a politicians life is made up not just of grand strategies, but tactics too, the ephemeral is not as irrelevant to their lives as you and lachrie, that's the same word he used,  seem to think and the foreword is Thatchers own words not comment from some right wing rag..I don't see how it's possible to work constructively with you either, I didn't realise that's what you and lachrie were trying to do, I thought you were just trying to own the Thatcher article. Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have disagreed with your edits, at no time have I called into question your good faith, or insulted you as a person as you have done to me. Perhpas I made a mistake in not at least making a cursory search online for the manifesto - but the onus is on the person adding material to cite it adequately in any acse.  I have no idea who Lachrie, and certainly have no interest in owning the article, I originally only came to it to add very striagtforward references about here peerage and other honours (and not because I think she deserves them, but simply becasue I knew where to find them).  I have absoutley no liking for the woman, but I hold no brief for Scargill either.  David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock
You should be able to edit now, leave a note here if you can't. was indiscriminately adding links to National archives links, the VC page actually had three of the same link until I gave it a little clear-out. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess the messages crossed in cyberspace. Yes, I guessed that was what was going on. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Some of those links might have been helpful but the indiscriminate nature wasn't helpful. Hope you can sort it out! Oh, incidentally, and on an utter tangent, do you want rollback rights? I note that you don't have them. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, make sure it is only used to revert unequivocal vandalism; if it could be good faith then undo it the usual way. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham, (Talk page) work= and newspaper=
Aaarh you may agree or disagree. Well the fact is they don't bloody work properly. They lose the access date and what is the point of having newspaper= when it doesn't work? I fixed 102 references at Electric Car which is now down to 80 and I had a hell of a job with cos sometimes it just doesn't work. Consistency is the most important, and also that er people can click through it, and if they print it it still makes sense? SimonTrew (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problem was actually that a lot of news sources were using cite web, not cite news. So far as I can see, everything still has accessdates, and now everything also has newspaper names correctly italicised.  If I hadn't sorted it out, it would have be picked up if the article is taken onto FA as is currently planned.  David Underdown (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Humble
Nice article, keep up the good work! 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Memorial picture
Hey David. That's a wonderful picture, thanks! I didn't even know that existed, so it's nice to find out. RL is keeping me from doing much wiki-writing at the moment, but I'll have aponder and see where it might go. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually part of a sort of triptych, from left-to-right, Submarine Service, Commandos, Airborne. I've got photos of the the other two figures, but haven't got round ot uploading them yet. In the two gaps between the figures are 1939 and 1945 to indicate it's WW2 (you can jsut see 1945 in the image above).  David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Celestin Hennion
Hi David Forgive me but I have changed your correction of my addition. Hennion was certainly a great man but the modernizer of French policing as witnessed by two fairly recent biographies, both in French (and listed in the article) is usually regarded as Louis Lepine. I don't think anyone claimed Hennion as the first poineer before the recent television programme on his ancestor. Lepine was Prefect for eighteen years and Hennion for one. At best Hennion was able to build on Lepine's huge achievements. I checked the reference and it is a popularist link concerned about the television programme rather than a serious piece of historical research. That doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it could be countered quite easily. The problem lies partly in the fact that Lepine has never had an English biographer. I've had to use French sources.I admit to being a tad rusty. kind regards Greg


 * Fair enough, looking agin. Though it was Hennion who opened the traingin school etc which seemed ot be the main claim for beig the father of modern policing.  David Underdown (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lang dedication
Do you have a source for the statement that the restored Chapel of Stephen the Martyr in Canterbury Cathedral was dedicated to Lang? I have no doubt it s true, but it ought to be cited somewhere. I have looked online for a news report, without success. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the photo full size, you'll find the chapel cites itself. Below the coats of arms on either side, on the left of the picture is engraved, "This chapel of St Stephen Martyr was rstored in 1950", and on the right, "in memory of Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterb[ury] 1924-1942".  Given the number of people who visit the catehdral each eyar, I think taht's sufficiently verifiable!  David Underdown (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I now see. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary
Hmmm. Fair comment. And probably a well timed and accurate assessment! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonard W. Murray
Many thanks for helping clean up the Murray article. I have been working on the content for some time but was a little confounded by the editing tools since I am new to wiki-editing. Your patience is very much appreciated. Friendofleonard (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, we were all in the same situation once upon a time. The referencing system was one of the things I found hardest to get my head around at first. David Underdown (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

VC topics
Hey David, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates? Your opinion would be appreciated given your past interest in the topics. Thanks, Woody (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Holy Comma, Batman!"
Curious. Why is "The Holy See", ... different from "holy,". I understand logical quotation punctuation, however, when we say something is "holy" we don't mean to say that it's "holy," (Unless it's "Holy Comma, Batman!") You "undid" a change I made, but didn't change other text on page to reflect the cited Wikipedia MOSQUOTE

Frankly, if it's logical, it's not English. Similarly, poetry with rules is not poetry.

I disagree with "logical quoting," and you can quote me on that. (Seriously, you must include the comma if you ever quote my text.) Tjlafave (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree all you like, but it's the style Wikipedia has chosen to adopt. Yes I had missed the other example, though having reviewd the rest of the page a little more carefully, it does apepar that was the only other exception.  I understand taht the original reason for including punctuation within quotes was for practical reasons with lead type, which is obviously irrelevant here, and was never really adopted in the UK in any case.  David Underdown (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter
I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter. See also Cite web. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did, I've only ever used accessdate, and I can't see any examples int eh diff you cite. David Underdown (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now, FreeBMD prefroamt cite templates for you, unfortuantley they are still using the old format. I'll try to remember in future.  David Underdown (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on Gass
I admire your fleshing out of Charles George Gass's post WWI career. Nice job. Your tidying of the article is also much appreciated. Georgejdorner (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Gazette doesn't show up on Google search. Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Redoubts in Charge of the Light Brigade
Can you please check the talk page in that article? Ken l lee (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

George Edwin Patey
Hi David, I am unable to get access to the Times Archive at the moment due to a max'd out credit card. If you could send any information to flesh out the article of George Edwin Patey, it would be great. My email is nemw30@hotmail.com. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lang and the Prayer Book controversy
As you monitored (and made useful additions to) the development of the Lang article, I thought I'd ask your opinion on a possible issue that has arisen during its Featured Article candidacy (see discussion here) An editor has taken issue with the adequacy of the coverage of the Prayer Book controversy. I think some of his ideas are misconceived, and I have answered his points, but I think there may be more to come. I would welcome another viewpoint, if you can spare the time to visit the page. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)