User talk:Farawayman/Archive 1

South African Army
Thanks for your thoughts at the talk page. Are you able to obtain more information on the 7th and 8th Divisions in the 70s and 80s? There is only very patchy information on the net. Thanks for any assistance you might be able to provide.. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as conventional formations were concerned, 7 SA Division and 17, 18 and 19 Brigades were established on 1 April 1965. Difficulties with manning levels saw the disestablishment of 7 SA Division on 1 November 1967 and its replacement by the Army Task Force (HQ) and 16 Brigade. It was decided in 1974 to organize the Army's conventional force into two divisions: 7 SA Infantry Division (71, 72 and 73 Motorized Brigades) and 8 SA Armoured Division (81 Armoured Brigade, 82 Mechanized Brigade and 84 Motorized Brigade). The HQ's of the two divisions were established on 1 August 1974, and they form the basis of the organization of South Africa's conventional forces to this day. Reference: []  Farawayman (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

South African division article
Just read your article on the 1st South Africa Divison as an avid WW2 history buff Myself

What a wonderfully constructed page!

Regards

--Trevorsem (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouraging words Trevorsem! - I have just asked for some reviews on it, as I have only just finished. I want to document the 2nd SA Div as well - but only after I have received comment on this, my first effort! Farawayman (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambig links
Hi Farawayman, I've been working on the 1st Division (South Africa) article, trying to remove the links to the disambiguation pages and pipe them through to the more appropriate link (this will normally come up in a Featured Article review but we may as well do it now). I've got most of them but there are a couple I'm not sure where they should link to. Can you please take a look at this tool? It will show you the links that you should look at. There are a number of tools that are used in a Featured Article review, you can find them at Featured article tools. Just select the appropriate tool (there is one for disambig links, edit counter an external link checker and alt text) and then add in the exact name of the article you want to check. Anyway, happy editing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It really helps to know what tools exist - they make things so much easier! Balance of links corrected and I will check the article using the other tools too!  Thanks for the advice!  Farawayman (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey, I'm semi-retired at the moment...but sure, why not? I've not done this before, but I see from your contributions you're already doing really well. Are there any areas you'd like to look at in particular? Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Skinny87 - Some initial questions (in no particular order), related to policy / “ethics” applicable to Wikipedia. I’m sure I could find the answers somewhere within all the Wiki data… but it would take for ages to find!
 * When does one initiate an intended edit by means of a new discussion on the article Talk Page and when does one simply “barge in” and edit the text?
 * Under what circumstances is it acceptable to undo an edit, done by an “approved editor” (i.e. where the edit was not a correction of fact or a technical correction to align the article with standard formatting)?
 * Why is it unacceptable to cite another Wiki article as a reference?
 * I see articles with many links to other Wiki pages. How many times does one link a word or phrase in an article to another Wiki page – each time, or the first time it is used?
 * I understand the need for a citation for a pertinent point of fact or a statistical statement – but how often should one use citations for other, normal text? Per sentence? Per Paragraph (assuming a paragraph is composed of inputs from the same source)?
 * I'm sure there will be more..... your opinions would be appreciated.

Well, I'll do these point by point:


 * 1) I usually move to the talkpage if my intended edit will introduce any new information, or anything possibly controversial; also if I'm about to begin a large rewrite/expansion of the article. I also check the history tab of the article; if it's rarely edited leaving a message is all well and good, but starting right away might be okay.
 * 2) Sorry, what do you mean by an 'approved editor'?
 * 3) In terms of citing other wiki articles, as anyone can edit them, ironically really they're unreliable - ie you could cite that a division was in France at Date X, only for someone to change it to another date/location, or vandalize it.
 * 4) Generally, one linksa word or phrase once in the lead if it's used there, and then once again the first time it's used in the main text of the article.
 * 5) Personally, I always cite every time I either use a new source, or every time I move to a different page in a book I'm using it. Hope these help! Skinny87 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NZ Div
Thanks for all your expansions to the article. I suppose I should fill it out but I try to focus on much more harder-to-get stuff like Liberia and Russia. Thanks again. Buckshot06(prof) 19:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you need any specific items to be looked up on the Eastern Front - I have a sizeable collection of good books on this campaign (e.g Glantz, Beevor, Erickson, Bellamy and many others) Farawayman (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. I mean things such as the current in-progress conversion of the Russian Ground Forces' maneouvre formations from divisions to brigades. Usually right-now stuff or hard-to-find Cold War period. But thanks anyway. Buckshot06(prof) 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Farawayman. Would you mind checking your NZ Div 1944 order of battle source? Right now, 4 Bde seems to include all of divisional artillery and all of divisional engineers. Are the separate HQ Div Arty and HQ Div Engineers not listed on your 1944 order of battle? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Headings for Div Arty and Eng were missing. Fixed.  Farawayman (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:EastAfricaCampaign01Cropped.jpg
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Farawayman, I believe that this image can be salvaged from deletion if you add a licence to the image page. As you have stated you are the author of the image, adding the Public Domain - Self tag licence should be enough. This can be added by adding: under a heading called 'Licence'


 * Hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have done the trick - thanks! Farawayman (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Keep up the good work on your article. I think it is coming along quite well. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SA WWI/WWII gallantry awards
As you've probably noticed I've managed to track down some more info on the gallantry awards for 1st Infantry Div - I see that in the Gazette for Shaw there are 7 other MCs for members of the SA forces, there are no units given though, so I don't know if they should be added to the table, but looking at the original recommendations available on from The National Archives, I suspect they probably should be. You'll notice I've also added references to the London Gazette, these shoud be avaialble for all the awards, full citations will always be given for the VC, by WWII those for lower decorations generally weren't, but if you look up te WWI MCs you may find the full citation published.

I see you added some links to documents in the SA national archives - is it not possible to link directly to the documetn descriptions in the catalogue, from the link you give I couldn't work out which of the databases I needed to select to get info on those documents. David Underdown (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the reference by adding the Database name. Farawayman (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We cross-posted there, I'm now not going to have much opportuntiy before next week, you may be able to do some research yourself, though you won't be able to read the original recommendations unless you really want to shell out £3.50 a time (fortunatley I happen to have free access). For WWII awards, you can look in the Recommendations for Honours and Awards http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp?WT.hp=Recommendations%20for%20Honours%20and%20Awards you'll at least be able to see the apge tat tells you unit, theatre of war and Gazette date, which can help track down the official announcment (beware though that supplements to the London Gazette are recorded under the date of the original issue to which it was a supplement on the Gazette website, so if the Gazette date is say 15 April 1942, you really need to search from say 10-16 April on the Gazette website (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search). Unfortunately, not all recommendations from this era were preserved.  If you've found them, then I'll be able to look at the actual recommendations next week and fill out some more of the detail.  For the First World War VCs, you can try the Victoria Cross Registers, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/victoriacross.asp again unless you want to pay, you won't be able to see the full details, unfortunately no details of the wider recommendations are online for this period. I do notice that you have one of the MCs tagged as being posthumous - the MC couldn't actually be awarded posthumously until the 70s. It may be that he was killed before the announcement was made, but that's not quite the same thing, posthumous recognition implies he died in the action for which the award was made, and during WWI the only awards taht could be made posthumously were the VC (and even taht wasn't actually tidied up by a change to the official criteria until after the war!) and being Mentioned in Despatches. David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Archive record for the "posthumous" award reads as follows: "DESCRIPTION HONOURS: MISCELLANEOUS. FORWARDS MILITARY CROSS AWARDED TO 2ND LIEUTENANT JOHN BRENCHLEY FOR PRESENTATION TO NEXT-OF-KIN."  What do you make of that?  That he died after being nominated / cited for the award, but before being presented the medal? Farawayman (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, the nomination and review process always took some time, see Wilfred Owen for a similar case, oreven more extreme George Prowse, neither of whose decorations had been gazetted at the time of his death, though he had been notified of both awards. Incidentally I'm still ahving trouble navigating the NA SA website with the references you give (it may just be me being dim, but I'm reasonably familiar with archival catalogues) David Underdown (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Search on the initials and surname and then cross-check that you have the correct record by checking the reference number. I see now that one cannot search on the reference numbers!  Farawayman (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sources further, it looks like he was serving wth 4 Battalion Coldstream Guards, rather than with SA forces anyway, see http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/100579 and the initial annoucement of his MC, before the date of death given by CWGC, and the citation . The usual protocol is that once the announcement is made you can wear the ribbon for the medal (there may be some sort of presentation by a divisional general, or maybe just the regimental CO), bu tthe medal itself is normally presented at a formal investiture ceremony which could take place sometime later.  David Underdown (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll remove him from that table and will check the others as best I can baed on the URL's you've provided. Farawayman (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you already did it! Thanks.  Farawayman (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallantry awards, 2 NZ Div
Hi Farawayman. I must respectfully - and full well knowing the work you've done on this page - disagree with adding a table of gallantry awards. Firstly, there were numerous VCs, MCs, crosses, bars etc awarded to 2 NZ Div - my grandfather among them - and singling out such men would give them undue status over all the thousands that laboured and were not given awards. See the discussion on WT:MILHIST on the last archived page - your act of bravery has to be noticed, written up well, usually by an officer, and then pass the medals board. Secondly, if we add even just the VCs the way you've done them, since in 2 NZEF that means Hinton, Hulme, Upham with two, Elliot, and Moananui-a-kiwa Ngarimu, it would distort the page totally. We only need brief mentions in text, linked to the individual soldier's page where the full cite can go.

Thus I'm removing the table. Hope this adequately explains. Please feel free to discuss/argue back. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, I concur - the details of any awards belong either under the page of the recipent or under a list of the respective awards. A reference in the text is all that is called for.  I will adjust the pages I've been working on (which contain such tables - particularly 1st Infantry Brigade (South Africa)) accordingly.  Rgds  Farawayman (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ✅ Farawayman (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fair use rationale for File:SSB SHOULDER TITLE & RED TAB.jpg
Ok, I agree that it's probably fine for Whoosis to retag this under a free license- he took the photograph and the original design is too simple to copyright. However, I recommend you ask him how he would like to license the image, rather than simply assuming he's happy for it to be in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that! Refer my message on his talk page. Farawayman (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance and patience. I apologise for the delay and offer sloth and workload as the reason. I agree that the red tab is significant in the military history of SA. SA's participation in WW2 divided the white population and the red tab divided the UDF. There was considerable animosity when Hiemstra was appointed CG SADF having not served in WW2 or Korea! Whoosis (talk) 19:16, 2 September 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) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate review problem
The problem was the transclusion link was added to the top of the peer review for WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Background of the Winter War as well as to the correct place (WP:MHR). It's easily done on busy pages if one hits the wrong [edit] button :) Anyhows, it's fixed.  Roger Davies  talk 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger!!! Farawayman (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

stubbing
Please don't waste people's time by adding stub to articles which already have a specific stub type, as you did for Glenwood High School (South Africa). And if you're adding a stub tag, please place it at the end, not the top of the article - see WP:LAYOUT. Thanks. PamD (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Delville Wood 17 July 1916 v3.png
Thank you for uploading File:Delville Wood 17 July 1916 v3.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Delville Wood
I like the work you're doing on this, it's looking really professional & detailed. Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rod, Thanks...... and comments, improvements and "error spotting" would be most welcome! Farawayman (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Haig Rawlinson von Falkenhayn von Below.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Haig Rawlinson von Falkenhayn von Below.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Can you please provide proper sources for the commons images you claim are being used for this composite image, so we can check the copyright. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
Composite is composed of the following Wiki Commons files: Farawayman (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Top Left: Commons:file:Douglas Haig.jpg
 * Top Right: Commons:file:Henry Seymour Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson of Trent by John Singer Sargent.jpg
 * Bottom Left: Commons:file:Erich von Falkenhayn.jpg (cropped and changed to grey shades)
 * Bottom Right: Commons:file:Fritz von Below (1853-1918).jpg


 * Unfortunately you have added the PD-USGov licence to the composite image but none of the original images is licenced as such, so that licence is false. Only the Haig image suggests that the USGov licence applies. The only licence you can use for the composite is based on the lowest image licence which is determined by the originals. I will look at them to see what might apply but in the meantime, I will link to the original files on the composite, something you could easily have done yourself. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps and the Academy
Picking up on what you said here, would you have time please to flesh out this creating maps stub at the Milhist Academy? It could be pretty basic, just covering the essentials, ideally from about four to six paragraphs in length, perhaps summarising some of the key stuff from the Wikitravel essay? If you could, it would be much appreciated. Roger Davies talk 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial text done. I will expand and add templates, examples and links in the coming days.  Farawayman (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,  Roger Davies  talk 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia buying Western Phibs
Thanks for this - much appreciated! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bailey's Sharpshooters: Note the extensive precedents for deletions of company-sized units (and the AfD for 49th Public Affairs Detachment (Airborne)) at the moment. Company sized and below units need to be very carefully sourced - lots of dead-tree sources though net sources help too. I'd advise you to take this into consideration before you mainspace this article. Cheers and regards from NZ, Buckshot06(prof) 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not supposed to see that!!!!!! Hmmm... ok, maybe an inclusion in the WWI section of the page Sniper.  Thanks for the advice, dont want to waste time!  Farawayman (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC) ....and rgds from the first snows of Europe!  Farawayman (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian Army during World War I
Hi Thanks for your edits can you add the page number for Bridger in the Organization section and if you could add any new ref sources into the References section. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Apologies, added it. Farawayman (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you check the Indian Army entry into the war section you have added sailed from Bombay on 16 October 1914 for Bahrain, becoming the first Indian forces committed to war outside of India.

This would seem to be wrong as the Indian Expeditionary Force A landed in Marseilles on 30 September 1914 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, see your point! I added the text after "...for Bahrain," as the reference I was checking implied this to be the first deployment [to the Middle East].  But, if that correction is made, then a preceding paragraph is needed relating to the reasons for the speedy deployment of Force A to Europe. Farawayman (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for checking them! — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WWI
You know, I think that's going to be the best way to improve the article; it's really not a one-person effort. I have to admit, somewhat guiltily, that WWI isn't my period; I don't think I have any books on it, apart from one on the Treaty of Versailles. Still, the technology aspect has always interested me, and I could try and dig up stuff on that aspect. Skinny87 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) LeadSongDog come howl  14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Featured article candidates
Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured article candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the Featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:


 * Reviewers achieving excellence
 * Reviewing images (free images / non-free images)
 * Reliable sources in content review processes

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at FAC, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at FAC. Now get to reviewing some noms! Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions - it's so nice to see new reviewers! Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia article
Thanks for the update again. They really seem to be in a hole - they're building three submarines for a missile that doesn't work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:CapeGarrisonArtillery.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CapeGarrisonArtillery.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HMSAS Afrikander
Farawayman, nice article on HMSAS Afrikander. If you've got any questions about the changes I made, please give me a shout at my talk page - I would be delighted to help. Are you thinking of doing any more ship articles, or are they any you've already done which you would like me to cast an eye over? Yours, Shem (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did wonder whether the "A"s were significant! If there's anything I can do, just ask.  Yours, Shem (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Middlesborough > Middlesbrough
Hi there. If you're writing about ships made in the UK I hope you might like to know that Middlesbrough is spelt thus, not with the extra "o", which would land you in Kentucky! :) Hope this helps, cheers, DBaK (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say
You're doing a great job on South African Navy. Roger (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dodger, but you have been contributing too!! Farawayman (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little "uncomfortable" that you use photos of similar but not the exact ships in some places - the Chilean Sa'ar 4 is one example. The mast is different, the weapons fit is different, and worst of all it has a great big Chilean flag! I think it is better to not have a photo at all than to have a wrong one. Roger (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, however, where the only picture available is of a sister ship from the same class, I think we can use that. As for the Sa'ar class, as its physically different.....delete it, agree.  Farawayman (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

SA military equipment photos
As you are a major editor of many SADF/SANDF related articles I thought I could raise the issue with you. Many articles have inadequate photos (e.g. We don't have good photos of all the Valour class frigates in their "in service" configuration) and some subjects have no photos at all. I am an active member of a SANDF related forum. Many members have large collections of photos of a wide range of subjects - ships to rifles, helicopters to tanks. I can post requests for photos to be released for WP use. Some of the forum members would even be willing to go out and take specific photos on request. Roger (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger - apologies for the late response, but I have been on vacation! I think its an excellent idea to request photo's to be lodged in Wiki commons.  Please point me to the forum you are making use of too.  Farawayman (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum In spite of the name it does cover all aspects of the SANDF. There are a bunch of really excellent photographers there. The main site has mainly SAAF news and is also asociated with http://www.defenceweb.co.za which is a high quality news site. Roger (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Request for photo's of decommissioned SAN ships posted on the forum. Lets see what transpires.  Farawayman (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WSC citations
Hi Farawayman. I've just been stomping around some recent citations you have added from Churchill's writings. I thought I better explain myself rather than just appear rude. Originally it was just to substitute "page" for "pages" in the template but then I noticed that some of the footnotes were adjacent not to a fact being verified but just the operation's name. Does this mean the reference is one for general reading on the subject or is it just that it was misplaced and should be next to a particular fact being verified? If the former, may I suggest that you add it in a Further Reading section per WP:FOOTERS? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In Churchill's writings, each volume contains an Appendix with the code names for all operations covered by that volume. The intention was to give a reference for the source/accuracy of the operation code name, nothing more.  These cites can be readily deleted if I have used or interpreted the use of the cite function incorrectly.Farawayman (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

6th SA Armoured Div
Hi. Some excellent work going on here! I don't really have the time to get involved but got a little sucked in recently. Before I pull back I have a couple of concerns: while tidying up the note + ref combinations using the construction (which allows one to insert a within it)
 * I have never known how to do this (to add a citation within a note) ....not sure I know even now - will have to check the methodology you used again! Thanks for the corrections.
 * Also, please keep checking and questioning, your real-time peer review is both really valuable and appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a brief example at WP:REFNOTE of separating Notes and citations plus the use of . Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 13:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the Jackson refs have been changed to "....Vol VI p2" format. I think p2 is confusing and Part 2 should be used (yes, I know, anyone with half a brain could work out the former but you know.....). Also I was alarmed that one ref to p2 should have been to Part 3. I haven't checked the others - are you sure they're correct? There are also a number of refs to Jackson Vol II - are they supposed to be to Vol VI Part 2?
 * Thus far in the article, I have only been using Jackson VI Part 2. I did a global update for all Jackson references to Part 2 when I noticed that someone had added Jackson Part 3 as a referenced book (may have been you!).  I did not notice that there was a citation referencing Part 3 in the very last paragraph, as I had not written that and not added the cite.  The global update thus changed that one from Part 3 to Part 2. I will re-check all Jackson references.  Farawayman (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally I'm a bit concerned with the bit that reads "Ultra intercepts had shown that the Allies had a significant numerical superiority in manpower, armour, air and artillery and the Allies were depending on further German retreats as had taken place on the previous defensive lines.[38]". The ref is to Jackson Vol VI Part 2 p. 228. Looking this up there is no mention of ULtra or a dependence on further German retreats making the citation somewhat of a stretch. Is there a mistake in the reference? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference to the Ultra intercepts related to intelligence before this attack from Hinsley: British Intelligence in WW2. I also checked the Jackson reference  and it is correct (p.228).  However, I removed the assumption carried forward from the previous sections which stated that a German withdrawal was expected.  Farawayman (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Top man. BTW did you get your copy of Hinsley second hand or is it still available new? Regards. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 13:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Found them on e-bay (UK), 1st Ed (I think there has only been one edition) one year ago, "New" @ £76.00 (5 volumes HC, HMSO). Farawayman (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar
Hey there. I've been meaning to work on Madagsacar for a while, and I've got a whole heap of stuff on the French aspects - Free French versus Vichy and the like, which would need to go into the Background sections especially. Are you planning to complete the article, or just create a skeleton article? If the former, I wouldn't mind helping if you'd like - might as well use the sources I've got in the old sandbox. Skinny87 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your support, sources and inputs / edits are not only most welcome...... but would be of huge value! I only have three main sources, Churchill, Turner (War in the Southern Ocean) and another book being part of the semi-official S Afr Mil history series for WW2 (name of that volume escapes me right now). I have lots on the general conduct of the war and the strategic consequences, but nothing on the Vichy / Free French point of view (exception: Collapse of the Third Republic by Shirer). Also, I have very little from the Japanese / German perspective. Lets see what we can do - tomorrow is a public holiday, so I can spend some time on this one! Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Madagascar

 * FYI, I've mentioned this article in current discussion about Vichy at World War Two.-Chumchum7 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added my opinion! Farawayman (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sybrand Engelbrecht (soldier)
Hi, Farawayman. I came across Sybrand Engelbrecht (soldier) (apparently a Chief of the South African Army in the 50s and 60s) while trying to help reduce some of the Military history project's unreferenced biographies of living people. I've struggled to find any refs for this (found only one). Just wondering if you might have something in your library. Do you know if he is still alive, or if he isn't, do you possibly have a death date? Apologies for wasting your time with this, but I thought I should at least ask. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi AR. Unfortunately I don't have any books covering him or his era.  My collection covers Napoleonic Wars to WWII.  I also did a fairly detailed Google search but could not come up with anything other than what is already on Wiki.  Farawayman (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for taking a look for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New Article
Hi, I've started a new article you might be interested in. Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Gun, the Valour class frigates' CIWS system. Please help to bring it up to standard. Roger (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for awarding me the medal. I've created a special display area for it on my User page - I'm really quite chuffed! I quite like that it is a simple rusty star. So what do you think of my latest creation? (see above) Roger (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to "Death"
For my part, I would like to thank you very much for joining “our” discussion (irony intended reference “our”) at “Death”. I am flattered that my rants have qualified as a “debate”, but I want to make sure the context is not misunderstood.

Kierzek has been “mentoring” me, and Dan has supported me when I needed it most. The only disagreement I think we have is the use of the “dual method” device. I have rejected Bezymenski out of hand, others are not so blunt.

My POV of the article: “we” have two effective editors, one researcher, but no writer who will take the time to rewrite the article, so that “we” can get along with our “nit-picking”.

This article has a huge, good source base, has been analyzed to death (intended pun), and the current editors have more than enough knowledge. This article should be definitive, instead it somehow reads like a tabloid.

I have tried very hard to improve this article, but I am not Wiki, much of what I have posted I have later deleted. If anyone can help Kierzek and Dan get a handle on this, I can return to my world, and stop irritating people (especially me). Thanx.Wm5200 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I told you we had two effective editors, didn't I? I know Kierzek's knowledge goes back to at least Munich, my guess would be before Vienna. And as for you. I now think I know how others feel when I'm manic, you're really pounding this stuff out! I can't keep up, but I will keep at it. Thanx. Wm5200 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the water getting shallower now? "Little fish" refers to an insult (smelt, minnow, trout, I don't remember) she gave me on a secret trial that I didn't know about until later. If you are Wiki, you may be able to find all the conflict that I have deleted, to clean up the article's talk page. Try Googling her, too. And check her contribs. Until she and her army of socks are blocked for all time, well, when I saw she was back, I vomited. Literally. You thought Berlin was grim, you ain't seen nothing yet. Please feel free to "read and delete" this post. Good luck with the article.Wm5200 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That was what I was afraid of, I've irritated Kierzek, who is the article's main hope. I'm not afraid of her, so what if she blocks me? I'm stuck in quicksand here. You know I don't fit, I'm wearing my muddy work clothes to your formal dinner. Plus I'm crazy and paranoid. I don't fit, I don't know the rules, and the conflict is a drag. I'm supposed to show respect, but I feel that I've been abused by her from the start. I've asked anyone to review her actions, I get ridiculed. And she WILL NOT READ THE SOURCES! This is not my hobby, this is not fun, and I've been here for MONTHS. I just wanted to help. Irony? When I first saw her page, I thought "cool". Talk about judging a book by it's cover! Well, I gave it one last try. She's all yours.Wm5200 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wm5200, relax man. The lead (or lede, as some would write) still needs some tweaking (not to mention the rest of the article needs a good "going over"). I did agree with Farawayman to go ahead and put up the new lead (as it is) for the old lead was so bad. Work with Dr. Dan; add and tweak it. I myself don't have the time I wish I did to edit and cross-check on Wiki. And I will be very busy this weekend and gone from Sunday through Wednesday of next week. Anyway, keep up "the good fight" and I will check in when I can. Kierzek (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will. Hey, does one of you want this "Doctor" book (from my talk page), or have an idea what I should do with it? BTW, I just got rid of some Polish Browning knockoff (Radom?) that was made during the occupation. Joe brought it in in a leather holster, there was a clip in it, and the hammer was back. I've never touched a pistol before, but I had read, and I'm mechanical. No, no ammo, probably empty since Joe's grandfather found it and put it in his duffle bag. But I didn't know that! Wm5200 (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Thanks for your assistance
Your welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Privacy
Please respect the privacy of other editors by not mentioning their real life names unless you know for sure the editor is willing to have their name visible. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you have continued attempting to out an editor despite warnings, I have blocked your account for a week. I have also blocked your talk page access since you continued the outing here.  Please understand that attempting to give personal information about another editor is taken very seriously and that you may not continue to do so. You may email ArbCom at  to discuss your block.  Shell   babelfish 09:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magersfontein
The article has passed A-class, so good job, and pleasure working with you! Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that article is headed to FAC at some point ... whether it is or not, I'm going back and looking at those articles for which I only copyedited a few sections for A-class. I got the intro and the first section done for this one during the A-class review, and I've just finished the second section, except for a couple of things I've left for you:
 * "The first column was ordered to march directly on the south-western spur of the kopje and on arrival, before dawn, the 2nd Black Watch were to move east of the kopje, where he believed the Boers had a strong-point." (See the new A-class checklist, "Dangling words")
 * "Magersfontein ridge" (Consistency: "Ridge" was capitalized in the previous paragraph)
 * Also please see User:Dank/MIL. If you'd like for me to cover more of the article, please check the rest of it against the checklist or get someone else to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry
You two really worked well together, it’s so much better. I’m so sorry I rocked the boat, and got you dirty. Best luck in the future, you’re both good. No reply needed.The Pluton (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)