User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2008

Thank you
Thanks for providing those citations at Thomas Blamey. I'm fairly new to the history of the war in that area and was somewhat surprised to see those comments, as most of what I have gathered from contemporary accounts (war correspondents and the unit history of the American 41st Division) is that Americans held the Australians in high regard. I don't know much about General Kenney or the circumstances in which those conversations with Blamey/MacArthur took place but from what I've read of the US air corps officers in general, is they were so combative and defensive within their own service that some of them had developed awfully thin skins by the time the war began.

Do you have any recommendations for a book on the general history of Australia and her armed forces of that time period? Awotter (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The best account of Australia's war is Gavin Long's The Six Years War: A Concise History of Australia in the 1939-45 War (Canberra: Australian War Memorial and the Australian Government Publishing Service, 1973). Out of print, I'm afraid, but you can still pick up a second hand copy on Abebooks.
 * The first comment of MacArthur's came in the context of the defeats on Bataan and Singapore. Under the circumstances, he was skeptical of Blamey's claim that the Japanese advances in Papua would be held. The second was in the wake of the Australian retreat from Kokoda, which seemed to confirm his fears. MacArthur sent in American troops, the US 32nd Infantry Division, with disastrous consequences. He then proposed reinforcing the position at Buna with a regiment of the US 41st Infantry Division. Rather fortunately for them, Blamey talked him into sending more Australians instead.
 * The Americans came to hold the Australians in high regard over the course of time. Remember that while most Australian officers were familiar with the US Army from the Great War, the reverse was not true, so there was some unfamiliarity in 1942. Since then, the two armies have fought together in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, so familiarity is more common today.
 * Kenney was an avid campaigner for air power and a feisty guy, but he had a thick skin.
 * I should footnote the entire Blamey page.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reading a very battered book from my local library published in 1943 by Pat Robinson The Fight for New Guinea, Robinson was the first US war correspondent in NG (or so the book jacket claims), it's kind of like finding a time capsule. If you need assistance footnoting let me know, I'm in the process of updating some articles that have multiple references and Bibliography sources that are quoted extensively by page. as I see you have noted is clumsy in that regard, but I have found a workaround that incorporates Harvard style references/notes/and bibliography information yet still allows the references to number automatically and link to the article. You can see an example here — my references sandbox. Appreciate the feedback, thanks for your time.Awotter (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit I was surprised by your footnote that the 32nd Division was not as well rated as the 41st. I mean, why send it then? But I double-checked and - you're completely right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The 41st unit history (The Jungleers McCartney 1946) states the 32nd was sent first because they were closer to the transport areas at the time. The 41st went through extensive training with the Australians in jungle warfare and sent their NCO's through the Australian training schools, but many of them were transfered to other American divisions like the 1st Cavalry. From what I have read the 41st had more jungle training than the 7th which was sent back in to combat shortly after arriving from the Middle East. Blamey no doubt had well deserved confidence in them and MacArthur never seemed to grasp the conditions they faced.Awotter (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "General Eichelberger had already decided that the 32nd Division would precede the 41st to New Guinea. He made this decision because the training camp of the 32nd Division at camp cable near Brisbane was inferior to that of the 41st Division at Rockhampton. The general believed that the 32nd should go first because it would in any event have to be moved to another camp." (Milner, Victory in Papua, pp. 91-92) But Eichelberger remembered: "I told Generals MacArthur and Sutherland that I thought the 32nd Division was not sufficiently trained to meet Japanese veterans on equal terms... I gave the 32nd Division a 'barely satisfactory' rating in combat efficiency." (Eichelberger, Our Jungle Road to Tokyo, pp. 11-12)
 * The 7th Division was the only division in the theatre with combat experience, and it had the highest efficiency rating; but it did not have much in the way of jungle warfare training. The Jungle Training Centre at Canungra did not open in November 1942. Thereafter though, the Australian Army had to fight only one enemy, in one theatre, and training, equipment and doctrine could all be adapted to that, and the Army became honed to a very fine edge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
So far I am enjoying collaborating with you: I would dare to say we are doing a great job together, and I would like to sincerely thank you also for helping with my English. It would be very nice of you if you could be so kind to take a look also at this section I wrote from scratch (which seems to need "copy-editing"), and to the brief text I added to the article summary to introduce it (yes, I believe it deserves to be there) in the article's incipit. Again my sincere thanks for your contribution and best of all, --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Your English remains much better than my Italian will ever be. I has been a pleasure to work on the article with you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again my thanks for keeping an eye on the article about Kesselring. It's been a pleasure to me to verify, after so many months (or, since my last edit), how it endured time and edits almost intact (actually, I found it to be a little better than it was), mostly thanks to your continued presence. Best of all, --Piero Montesacro (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Major General (Australia)
Could I impose upon you to explain why you reverted my edit? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Pip" is colloquial. "Star" is more correct. As it says under Australian Army officer rank insignia: "The Star, commonly called a pip, is derived from that of the Order of the Bath".
 * Feel free to change the entry to this wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Once again my "common usage" or "current usage" is at odds with Historical Fact. (How inconvenient.)
 * Yes thank you, I will accept your offer to Feel free to change the entry to this wording.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Time machine
Received a book purchase from eBay today, the 1944 AIF army series book with all the wonderful military submitted material. Absolutely amazing, I wish the US Army had had the foresight to do that. I thought I'd come here and beg some of your expertise, in the book all the credits are given by Army number rather than name, is that information readily available online by any chance?Awotter (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, at the Department of Veteran's affairs website World War Two Nominal Roll. Select service number and enter the service number. VX3 should given you Sid Rowell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fantastic! Very much appreciated.Awotter (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

China War Medal (1900)
The difference between the China War Medal (1900) and the Queen's South Africa Medal is that the qualifying period for the China War Medal was for service during the period 10 June 1900 to 31 December 1900 (ie, prior to Federation). As a result, the China War Medal is not listed on the Australian Order of Wear found here. The Queen's South Africa medal has a qualification period that goes from 11 October 1899 to 31 May 1902 (post federation). As a result, the China War Medal should not appear in the list of Australian Campaign medals, in the same way that the 19th century Maori Wars or Sudan medals do not appear. PalawanOz (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit rough, given that the medal was instituted after Federation and awarded by the Australian government. Also, could you re-check the arithmetic for me? My source lists 256 men with the New South Wales Contingent, 197 with the Victorian, and 102 on the South Australian gunboat Protector - a total of 555 medals. (The text now excludes the South Australians.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Battle of Kaiapit, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of St John
As I understand it only State Orders confer post-noms, Order of Saint John is a Royal Order, but not a State Order - appointments are never included in the New Year or Birthday Honours, but are gazetted separately. It's a common error to include post-noms for it, and in certain circumstances, things directly related to the order, they are used, so if monuments were donated by the order, it might actually be correct. It's not impossible I'm wrong, User:Necrothesp may be able to shed more light. David Underdown (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on post-nominal letters says: "When listing the honours and awards enjoyed by any person it is customary to include the Order of St John, but this is a Royal Order and not a State Order, and so confers no precedence. The statutes of the order state (statute 32(2)) The letters specified … may be used … but admission or promotion to any Grade of the Order … shall not confer any rank, style, title, dignity, appellation or social precedence whatsoever."

So it appears that KStJ should be included. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Governor General's website: "Post-nominals within the Order of St John are not recognised as notified in the Governor-General's media release of 14 August 1982." The Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards

So it appears that post-nominals were once used (as per the inscriptions), but are now no longer used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk nom

 * ...that Jessie Vasey's helped soldiers' wives and knew that war widows faced "uncaring government bureaucracy" before her husband died in an air crash? by Hawkeye7 OK? I tried to pick a hook that had online cites to assist in getting it on DYK. Pity, as the "ten men a night" quote would have made a good hook! Victuallers (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chief of Army (Australia)
(remove invalid link) x 2 Now come on. That's just being lazy. They're not "invalid" links. They're just links to the wrong person, and need disambiguation. It wouldn't have been any more difficult to change them to useful & definitive redlinks. But then, I guess it depends on your attitude to redlinks. What is your attitude to redlinks? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My only problem with redlinks is that there are too many of them! I didn't create redlinks as I was uncertain as to what the standard was and how to create a disambiguation. However, Henry Wells already has a disambiguation page. So all I need to do now is create the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there are too many of them. So all I need to do now is create the article. - Indeed! (And that's why there are too many redlinks - because "all I need to do" is not an insignificant task!!) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

dyk

 * ... that the approval of Brigadier Sir Neil Fairley's application for funds to study malaria may have been as a result of General Douglas MacArthur getting the disease in 1904? by Hawkeye7 nice article and I have nommed it for 3rd June. Do check that there is an inline ref clearly shown for this fact so that others can check it very easily. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation was correct, but it pointed to Manchester (p. 65). So I've inserted a citation to James (p. 90), who is the authoritative MacArthur biographer. Thanks for your help! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments on the peer review of Military history of Australia during World War II - much appreciated. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War II
Hi Hawkeye, I'm (slowly) working through the comments from the peer review, and was wondering if you could provide a source for the Australian Government only agreeing to keep the 9th Division in the Middle East on the condition it was used for garrison duties - I haven't been able to find it anywhere. By the way, is the coverage of the home front and industrial production and scientific development now adequate in your view? I agree with all the topics you nominated as being worthy of inclusion, but the Australian home front during World War II article might be the better spot for some of them. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hasluck, The Government and the People, pp. 195-198 covers this in all its confusing detail.


 * "The fact that the 9th Division had been used at El Alamein became the subject of a port-mortem inquiry in the War Cabinet, indicating that at least some of those concerned with the question were still not happy that the 9th Division should have been sent into battle." (p. 197)


 * "The introduction of this argument might seem to support a view that when Australia agreed to leave the 9th Division in the Middle East, it never intended that the division should be used in major operations, but, against this, it has to be remembered that as recently as 11th September Curtin and Forde, without reference to the War Cabinet, had agreed to send reinforcements because it was expected that the division would enter a period of more intense activity." (p. 197) [The reinforcements were not sent.]


 * "the use of the 9th Division 'had an important tag to it', namely that set by the agreement of 30th July to its retention in the Middle East, Australia was relying on the division being returned to it in good shape and strength." (p. 198)


 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to sound like I was volunteering to write the the Australian home front during World War II article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That section of the book is a bit confusing - I'll include some text about the government being unclear over what the division was to be used for when they agreed to leave it in the Middle East in early 1942. Between this and most of the 6th Div ending up in Ceylon it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Curtin's policy of bringing the troops home in early 1942 was very badly implemented. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Curtin didn't understand the implications of what he was agreeing to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The potentially endless debate ...
Your latest edit (23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)) commences: "I don't it to be thought". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
Any chance I could prompt you to add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force? In particular if you have a view on Options 1-3 (explained at the link) PalawanOz (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Blamey
Hi Hawkeye, I have a number of questions/comments regarding the contents of the succession boxes you added this morning: Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * GOC-in-C Australian Military Forces
 * There is not, nor has there ever been, an organisation called the "Australian Military Defence Forces".
 * The current organisation is called the "Australian Military Defence Force", and comprises all three services.
 * Blamey was never commander of the Navy or Air Force
 * The Australian Army was created in 1947
 * In 1942, I think it was called the "2nd AIF" - see Australian Imperial Force & Second Australian Imperial Force
 * Lieutenant General Vernon Sturdee, CB, CBE, DSO, idc, psc
 * I'm not familiar with "idc" or "psc". Can you tell me more please?
 * Yes, at some time between 1942 and 1945 Sturdee was CB, CBE, DSO
 * However, when he was appointed Chief of the General Staff on 1 December 1945, he was KBE, CB, DSO
 * When did "GOC-in-C 2nd AIF" pass from Blamey to Sturdee?
 * Lieutenant General John Lavarack, CB, CMG, DSO, idc, psc
 * I'm not familiar with "idc" or "psc". Can you tell me more please?
 * Lavarack ended up KCMG, KCVO, KBE, CB, DSO - it's a bit hard to work out what he was in 1941! (I guess that's a little "research project" for me ... )

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Australian Military Forces (AMF) was formed in 1901. It consisted of the PMF, CMF, and (in 1914-20 and 1939-47) the AIF, these being its regular and part-time components, and the volunteer force enlisted for overseas service. It was officially renamed the Australian Army in 1976, although of course we were calling it that from the very beginning.
 * The Australian Regular Army was formed in 1947, from the old PMF (Permanent Military Forces) and Interim Army. The PMF had no field units.
 * The current organisation is called the Australian Defence Force. This consists of the Army, RAN and RAAF. Officially, this was established in 1976. But the term had been in use since the 1920s. The creation of the RAAF in 1921 caused the supplanting of the older term Australian Naval and Military Forces.
 * The usage of the word 'military' to mean all three services is a recent American import. When reading anything from an earlier time (such as the Official histories of both world wars) you have to be aware that the terms "army" and "military" were interchangeable. Thus we had the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (ANMEF) in the Great War. Also the Military Cross and Military Medal - decorations awarded only to Army personnel.
 * Officers who passed the Staff College courses at Camberley or Quetta were entitled to the postnominal psc ("passed staff college"). Similarly, graduates of the Imperial Defence College recieved the postnominal idc.
 * Sturdee replaced Blamey as GOC-in-C AMF (and GOC AIF) on 1 December 1945. He did not officially become CGS until 1 March 1946. He was not a knight at this time (although he had been nominated by Blamey). He was awarded his KBE in the New Year's list in 1951. He recieved his CMG in 1916, DSO in 1917, and CBE in 1939.
 * It's not so hard to work out what Lavarack was in 1941 if (like me) you are working from the Army List of that year. But he received his DSO in 1918, CMG in 1919, CB in 1937, KBE in 1941, KCVO in 1954, and KCMG in 1955.


 * Oooops! I got that pretty screwed up, didn't I!! Golden WP rule: "Don't edit when tired".
 * "The Australian Military Forces (AMF) was formed in 1901 ... " - Agreed.
 * "It was officially renamed the Australian Army in 1976" - So I guess the "Australian Army" page, which says: The Australian Army was created in 1947, needs correcting?
 * "The Australian Regular Army was formed in 1947" - ditto?
 * "The current organisation is called the Australian Defence Force ... " - Agreed
 * "The usage of the word 'military' to mean all three services is a recent American import." - That explains a few things! Thanks, I hadn't realised that.
 * "When reading anything from an earlier time ... " - Agreed.
 * "Officers who passed the Staff College courses at Camberley or Quetta were entitled to the postnominal psc ("passed staff college"). Similarly, graduates of the Imperial Defence College recieved the postnominal idc." - Interesting. (I've never seen all-lower-case post-nominals before.) Thanks.
 * "Sturdee replaced Blamey as GOC-in-C AMF (and GOC AIF) on 1 December 1945. He did not officially become CGS until 1 March 1946. He was not a knight at this time (although he had been nominated by Blamey). He was awarded his KBE in the New Year's list in 1951. He recieved his CMG in 1916, DSO in 1917, and CBE in 1939." - Also useful to know. Thanks.
 * "It's not so hard to work out what Lavarack was in 1941 if (like me) you are working from the Army List of that year." - Conversely, it's a bit of a challenge if you aren't! Are those lists on-line? (Where?)
 * " But he received his DSO in 1918, CMG in 1919, CB in 1937, KBE in 1941, KCVO in 1954, and KCMG in 1955." - Thanks. (That will save me a lot of going-around-in-circles.) Most appreciated.
 * Many thanks, and sorry for creating such difficulties. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blamey's KB
I'm confused by the London Gazette announcement of Blamey's KB. There are two entries: 28 December 1934 and 22 February 1935. They seem to imply that the KB was awarded on two different dates. Can you explain this to me? Thanks in anticipation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ribbons "discussion" "revived"
Like me, you may not have noticed that User:Ian Rose has removed the Frederick Scherger section. I put it back and complained. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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

10/8 DYK
BorgQueen Gave me teh credit for cerating it, but that is rightly yours. Enjoy.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division PR
Hey. I replied to some of your comments, and I'd appreciate any follow-up comments you could make! Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some more comments on the PR page. Thanks for all of your help - with it, I think I'm ready to take the article to FAC. Here's hoping it'll succeed this time... Skinny87 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be happy supporting 11th ABN if I submitted it for FAC at this time? Skinny87 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Battle of Kharkov FAC
Hey, I responded to your comments. I'm not sure if you wanted to continue, or if wanted to respond, so this is just a kind reminder. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

13th ABN FAC
Hey Hawkeye. What source are you referencing that the 13th was destined for the Phillipines in January '45? I can't find anything about that in any of my books, or the official history of the airborne divisions. Is it in Hyperwar? Skinny87 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I've been in the US going through documents, so I haven't had access to my books. I've got in my hand a memorandum for General Chamberlin (G-3 GHQ) dated 29 August 1944: "The 13th Airborne Division is to be used in the DINGALAN assault or in any other operation in the Central Plains of LUZON should the DINGALAN assault be eliminated. With respect to either of these planned operations, the 13th Airborne Division should arrive from the United States between 15 January and 5 February, staging at LEYTE."


 * Hmmm. Is that sourced to a book? Otherwise I don't think that can be used 'cos it's a primary source. Never understood that policy m'self. I looked through Hyperwar and couldn't find it anywhere, and it isn't even in the official 13th ABN history on Google Books. Perhaps because it never got clarified before the division had to ship to Europe or it was at a very preliminary stage. But if it can be sourced for wiki I'll add it.Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to find it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. It's strange none of my sources mention it. But then again, given the unfortunate nature of the 13th, I had to cobble the article together from a lot of sources with fairly small sections in each. Skinny87 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you mind adding the Ruppenthal bit about the Phillipines into the article, please, since I don't have the book and don't know what it says? It should probably go at the very end of the training section. And could you take a look at the article again? I think I've addressed all of your concerns apart from the Phillipines bit. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hey Hawkeye. Would something like 'The division was preparing to transfer to the Pacific Theatre in early 1945; however, the rapid advances made by German forces during the Battle of the Bulge led to the division being transferred to the European Theatre of Operations to reinforce Allied divisions already in combat.', and cited to Ruppenthal, Vol. 2, p. 286 be okay? Does that sound okay to you? Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Real sorry Hawkeye, but I can't find the second Ruppenthal volume on Amazon to add its details to the bibliography. Do you have yours handy, or a website that has its details? Thanks again Skinny87 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Hopefully now that's in there I've addressed all of your comments on the FAC page. Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Neil Hamilton Fairley
Howdy. I'm interested by your recent edit. I, too, saw the use of MD there, and sincerely doubted that they were actual MDs. I'm interested to see you replaced it with Doctor of Medicine rather than MBBS (or whatever it is that Melbourne awards.) I don't disagree, but I'd be interested to read what your rationale was. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the two might be confused. I checked and verified that they were actually had MDs and not just MBBS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! MDs are not common in Oz; three in the one family is very unusual! (It makes the third brother's MBBS look very ordinary, doesn't it.) Yes, I agree with your rationale, especially given that I was one of the readers who (wrongly) assumed that the MD must be an error. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia 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. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Battles of Nitzanim
Hi Hawkeye7! I noticed that you made an edit to Talk:Battle of Nitzanim, but did not reply to my comment. Did you see it? Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah I didn't realize it was you. Anyway, my reply was here. Speaking of which, it made DYK yesterday. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 07:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Article assessments for SM U-67, SM U-70
I wanted to thank you for taking the time to assess the new article SM U-70. In looking at the Military history assessment requests I saw that you had also struck the request for SM U-67. For that article, you left the same comments as you did for SM U-70, but the project assessment on the article's talk page was not changed. Was that just an oversight on your part, or do you feel that it does not meet the B-Class requirements? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oversight. It was getting late. I have corrected this. The article has been rated B. Good work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping it was just an oversight. Thanks for the quick response. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Chief of General Staff (Israel)
Hi Hawkeye! Why did you assess the article Chief of General Staff (Israel) as start-class? It's meant to be a list. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 08:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules said: "Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status." Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Astonia
Hey, thanks for rating this article. Can you tell me in more detail what is needed to get it up to B-class? So what is missing from the coverage, say. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I sat down and rated over 250 articles over a couple of days. Only about ten rated a B. This one was unusual in that it was properly footnoted, which was the most common cause of failure. However, there were three obvious and simple omissions, easily rectified. The first was that no Allied commanders were listed. The second was that the article was filed as part of the Normandy campaign but was actually part of the Northern France campaign (which the Wikipedia calls Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine or Siegfried Line). I would recommend adding it to that campaign's box. Thirdly, LeHavre did become a significant port for both the British and US forces. I would expect to see a paragraph on the port and its operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair does; I don't personally have that info (my sources were limited to "so what does google say, then" but as a rule I always reference and footnote my articles. Any idea where/who might have this info? Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, me. :) Unfortunately, I'm on vacation at the moment and haven't got access to the two books I'd need - Ruppenthal's Logistic Support of the Armies and the Administrative Report of the 21st Army Group. I can do it in the New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I have 3 Featured thingummys but never a B-class article :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Pleshet
Hi Hawkeye7! You may wish to take a look at my newest article. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Sio
Wow, that's a fantastic article! How did you get the II Corps Report on Operations? - is this part of the Corps' war diary on the AWM website, or did you access a paper copy? (I ask as I'd love to find a copy of the I Corps report on the Borneo Campaign). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are both available at the AWM site:
 * II Corps Report on Operations December 1943 - March 1944
 * I Corps Report on Operations - Borneo Campaign
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's excellent! Thanks so much. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)