User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2009

17th ABN
Hey Hawkeye, I kinda need your help. Looking over 17th Airborne Division (United States) after reverting some IP's edits, I realized that I made the same mistakes I made on 11th and 13th ABN articles - not unusual considering it was only my second article. Anyway, most of it is fine apart from needing a good copy-edit, but the lead and the first section need a complete rewrite. I've committed the mistake of stating the 17th remained in reserve, when it would actually have been training for a long while before being committed to the ETO in late '44, and I've also got to completely rewrite the Knollwood Manouvre section to make it read as the 13th ABN does.I was hoping you could help me out with the former by looking through your sources and seeing what they saw about the 17th's formation and its training. Any info would help, thanks Skinny87 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the Knollwood Manouver and Swing Board aspects, and rewritten the lead to be more accurate. The only things the article needs now are info on training if at all possible (such as when it finished training specifically) and a damned good copy-edit as its prose is rather long-winded at the moment. Anything you could do to help would be greatly appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll furnish this for you tomorrow - I'm in transit today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Hawkeye, very kind of you. Skinny87 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Sio
Nice work! Hope to see more articles in this coming year! The Bald One      White cat 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article
Hey, I was doing New Page Patrol and I came upon your new article on Ennis Whitehead -- great job! I enjoyed reading it. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Military Barnstar
I would like to recognize your remarkable contributions to a number of military related pages with a military barnstar. Well done. I look forward to reading your future contributions. Ndunruh (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Market-Garden
Hey Hawkeye. Your edits to Market-Garden; is this just a limited thing restricted to the logistical sections, or are you going the whole way? Because if it's the latter, then I'm right behind you - I've been collecting my books together, and got a host of info on Market-Garden begging to be used. The only reason I haven't tackled the article yet is because it's a massive task and I thought it might be too big for one person. Skinny87 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm going all the way. It just happened that the logistics sections - my specialty - were up first. (I may create a sub-article just on logistics.) I was only intending only to fill in all the required footnotes rather than change anything, but the section logistics was not as good as I first thought... and there were other problems too, like the intro being too short - reviewers always complain about that. The section on strategy is also pretty tragic... but the main problem is that huge swathes of the sections on operations have no footnotes - it's not simply a matter of filling in the [citation needed] tags. I'm working from top to bottom, so I have to overhaul the strategy stuff next. Feel free to pitch in and footnote the operations sections!!!
 * Crikey, I can't believe it, Market-Garden is finally getting done. I remember it being one of the major airborne articles I wanted to edit when I first joined, and then getting chased away by the huge talkpage and constant edit-wars. Right, I have uni work to do this morning and afternoon, but the rest of the day I'll get started. Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started putting in the odd ref here and there, but it's rather daunting. I'm not sure where to start; I might just try and focus on the battle itself for the moment. What books do you have on Market-Garden? You can look at my Library subpage to see what I've got, if that helps at all. Skinny87 (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done the German forces section, that took a while - hopefully it's okay. Now, for the operational sections, the main structure is fine, divided up by day, but the subsections need consistency. I'm thinking of something along the lines of '1st Airborne Division', '82nd Airborne Division', '101st Airborne Division' and 'XXX Corps', with German forces mixed in with all four sections. How does that sound? Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pile on messages, but one more thought. I've rearranged the article structure slightly so that it makes more sense - Allied and German preparation. Now, at the moment it goes Allied preparation, German prep. and then a section entitled 'Problems'. I'm thinking 'Problems' should go as a subsection of Allied preparation to make more sense to the reader and aid reading flow. It might need a rename as well - 'Causes for concern', maybe to make it less POV? Skinny87 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hey, so I'm going to start writing the operational stuff today. Does the above structure sound okay? Skinny87 (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - that sounds fine. I like the proposed subsection breakdown. I think its the only way really. I'm still working on the strategy section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: have you seen the bit about XXX Corps being unable to bridge the Neder Rijn or Waal anywhere? Because I have the actual plans of how they were going to do it in front of me. (Also, the Maas at Grave was over twice as wide as the Neder Rijn.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get on with that operational stuff in my userspace. I can't find anything about XXX Corps being unable to bridge that river, although I'll keep looking. That 'Problems' section is rather problematic, ironically. Some of it seems like it should go in the 'Criticism' sections. Should we put everything that was problematical - Browning & Montgomery ignoring intelligence etc - in the aftermath section? Skinny87 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Started the Operational section; got an intro section done and started on the the first day, but this is going to take a while! You can see how I'm going by looking at the sandbox, here. Skinny87 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that it should be reduced to the first paragraph and called "intelligence", wityh the rest moved down under criticism.
 * Also:

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of each day having the same structure, ie 1, 82, 101, XXX
 * All the generals are introduced by this point, so there is no need to use their full names or ranks
 * Watch out for repetition.
 * We should standardise the footnotes. What form do you prefer? I'll conform to your choice.


 * Sorry, got distracted by the stuff noted below. Yes, the intelligence para is a good idea. As to the refs, I've always used 'author name, page number' and then the full details of the book in the bibliography if that works for you. Skinny87 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, its not going to work, because we have more than one book by the same author. I suggest we use the harvb template, which is just the same but adds the date too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. Skinny87 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hey, hope you don't mind, but this operational stuff is probably gonna take a few days to get done. Uni work is getting to be a problem as well as the operational details getting complex. Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's okay. When I finish the background, I'm going to clean up "Aftermath". Some parts of this article have been excellent but o
 * Also: While editing the Battle, could you move the pictures to more appropriate places? Like tghe maps on Day one and the pictures of people fighting in the rubble to later days? Also they don't like "sanwiching" - in which pix are on both left and right at the same time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I removed the pics from my sandbox; I'm gonna copy and paste the new text in when I'm finished then rearrange the pictures. Skinny87 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reorganised a bit so that there is now a section called "Geography" and one called "Intelligence". Both existed before - they've just been elevated to separate sections.
 * Don't be afraid to toss out some stuff. I'm thinking in particular of the subsection entitled "Communication breakdown" which probably should be moved to the "Battle of Arnhem" article, given that the article is so big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to merge that section into the 1st Airborne's section for the first day and cut it down. Skinny87 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * God, I didn't realize how complex writing 1st Airborne's section would be. But I think I've got Day One completed, and I'll start on Day 2 in a little while. Can you have a look at it in the sandbox and see what you think? Skinny87 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of editing directly into your Sandbox Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I formatted the references using the harvnb format.
 * 2) I then added the additional books you referenced to the References in the main article
 * 3) I also added some links to stuff like Eureka beacon
 * 4) Every time someone appears for the first time, their name should be in full. I've added extra details here to people's names.
 * 5) Dates are consistently in American ie month day. Some other editor's choice. But the spelling is all British. This concerns me. Your opinion sought here.
 * 6) Dutch names should be spelt as per the Wikipedia entries. So Sint-Oedenrode. We have a problem with Zon, which is called Son earlier in the article, but I am not certain that this is correct. Could you check?
 * 7) One question: I was under the impression the the 1st Parachute Battalion's job was to seize the high ground north of Arnhem rather than the bridge. can you check this?


 * Thanks for that. Spelling, I'm honestly unsure. Perhaps British, just to randomly pick one? As to Son/Zon, honestly, my sources all spell them both ways; to Harclerode it's Zon, to Devlin it's Son etc. I was just trying to be consistent - what should we call it? Z or S? And yes, I'll check what 1st Para Battalion's job was; if anything in the ssndbox is inaccurate please point it out - summarizing all this, especially 1st Airborne, is getting quite complex. Skinny87 (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just clarified 1st Battalions job - it was to seize the high ground near the north of Arnhem, got my sources mixed up. Skinny87 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hey, I think the Strategy section needs a good rewrite; it's all cited, but it doesn't seem to flow very well and is a tad repetitive. I'm also wondering if we can expand the geography section to get rid of the bulletpoints. Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Slow going on the operational stuff I'm afraid; my uni work is taking up more time now, and it doesn't help that 1st ABNs stuff is rather complex. I'm trying to go as fast as I can, but it might take some time. Skinny87 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time!

Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the spelling was changed from Zon to Son somewhere along the line. The recent books seem to say Son whereas the older ones (before the 1990s) say Zon. We'll go with the current Dutch spelling (Son) consistently.
 * I'd like equal weight given where possible to the 82nd and 101st.
 * Yeah, so would I; it's more than 1st ABNs position is the more complex, and thus needs more explaining, but I'll try and bulk up their sections. However, I'm also worried about the length of the section - at the rate it's going it might hit 100kb on it's own. I might have to write it all and then give it a drastic trimming after that. Skinny87 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that there is a separate page for Battle of Arnhem - currently little better than a stub. I suggest putting it all there and incorporating a summary into the main article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'm trying to keep it as short as possible - any trimming by you would be appreciated. I'm also having problems finding info on XXX Corps as I have no book specifically on it; what info I have is also contradictory. For example, Harclerode says the Corps reached Eindhoven on the evening of 18 September, but Huston says the morning of 19 September. If you have any sources and could expand the XXX Corps section and possibly clarify this it'd be welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, got my division's mixed up; it reached 101st by evening of the 18th and the 82nd on the morning of the 19th. Still, any info expanding the section would be handy, and any trimming as well. Skinny87 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

September 18

 * This day isn't as good as the first
 * Sorry, doing my best.


 * The 325th Glider Infantry Regiment did not arrive on day two. Recheck your sources.
 * Hmmm, Devlin appears to have made a mistake; I'll take that out.


 * We need to make it clearer that Grabner was attempting to cross the Arnhem Bridge from south to north. ie did not drive through Arnhem.
 * Clarified that, apologies.


 * "The company managed to advance as far as it had the previous day but encountered heavy German opposition which lasted until 15:00, when it was ordered to withdraw." Who was ordered to withdraw - the Americans or the Germans?
 * Again, clarified.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll provide some more material on XXX Corps.
 * I just realized I have a source on the US airborne division's I haven't even exploited yet (Warren's airborne study, online at ) and I'll use that to bolster the 101st and 82nd entries; we should also try and pare down the 1st ABNs sections so they're not much larger than the others. Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Warren is good. I've been using it :) I think that each day should start with an Air operations section. You've written these bits anyway.
 * I'm going to clean up the Aftermath section next. I may need some help with the "it has been claimed" bits which probably refer to books I don't have.
 * The Battle of Arnhem article conks out after day three.
 * I was thinking that there should be four sub-articles:
 * Battle of Arnhem
 * Battle of Nijmegen
 * Battle of Hell's Highway
 * Operation Garden
 * Sounds like a good idea. For 19 and 20 September, I'm not sure how much info can go into the XXX Corps section - they're linked up with 82nd ABN for those days at the very least, if not other days. I have very little info regarding XXX Corps independent of their assault on Nijmegen and then attempts to advance past it; what do you think? Do you have any info that could be added to make for a seperate section those two days? Skinny87 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum - 'He claimed/they claimed' etc I can handle, I have a lot of the books, especially Frost and Monty and Eisenhower. As for air operations, should I keep including them in individual divisions sections, or perhaps at the start of every day? And how much detail should they have in them? I'm still worried about the length of what I'm writing. Skinny87 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Length is pretty horrendous. Let it go to its own length. I do have some more material; length and relevance are the problem.
 * My suggestion is that each day start with air operations. So far the ones you have written do anyway.

He claimed/they claimed
Okay, I have got hold of Lindemann. But I can't write up that for a few days. In the meantime sources required for: Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Brereton had ordered that the bridges along XXX Corps' route should be captured with "thunderclap surprise"." It's in "A Bridge Too Far". Probably from Breteton's memoirs.
 * Horrocks advocates Rhenen, which he predicted would be "undefended". (As if.)
 * The commander of the British 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, whose troops were slated to fly into a captured airfield, pleaded with his superiors to allow a brigade to fly in with gliders
 * "However, there was another airfield near Grave"
 * I'll have a look after I get some more done for the operational stuff. Skinny87 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Burnt out
Ugh, I can't focus on writing that section any more, at least for the moment. I need to focus on something else and come back to it in a little while; I think it's too much to do at once. Hope you don't mind - doesn't mean I've given up though :) Skinny87 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

13th ABN Division
Hey Hawkeye. Look, there's an editor who's adding new bits and bobs to 13th Airborne Division (United States), including heraldic info; he's also deleted almost the entire intro, although I think that's an accident. I'm trying to doscuss it with the editor; could you look at the article, see if you think the heraldic stuff is in the right place, for example? I think it should go in the formation section. Any comments would be gratefully received. Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Hi Hawkeye! Thanks for nominating me :) I had no idea about this thing and am really flattered that you thought of me. Got only one vote though :( but really I didn't do much this year compared to some of the other nominees, many of whom wrote multiple FAs! I intend to write more articles related to the 1948–49 war though, just waiting until I can acquire more books on the subject. On a side note, Battles of the Kinarot Valley is pending a GA review, and has been up there for weeks. Maybe someone from the project can review it? Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 09:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2
--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

George Kenney
Awesome refs! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Market-Garden
Well, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try, but it's the battle section that put me off it the last time. It's still in my sandbox but it's so long and is only about half done - any ideas on how we could shorten it? Perhaps finish it first, then trim it? Skinny87 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be best. Is Operation Dragoon intended to cover the entire campaign? I would prefer to have an article entitled "Southern France campaign", of which Dragoon would be the landings only. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the more I look at the material I have no Dragoon, the less enthusiastic I become, especially for the airborne portion. I have a few airborne books that have sections on the airborne landings only, and only two books that look at Dragoon. And of those two, neither were written leater than the mid-1980s and are more like novels than academic texts, and one has a rather odd anti-British bias. Unless I can get more info, I'm not sure how much I can really contribute. Skinny87 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that you wanted to write up the airborne part. I was mainly interested in the seaborne landings and logistics. My main sources would be the Seventh Army Report on Operations, plus Riviera to the Rhine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll just write up Operation Rugby then, it's barely a stub as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ennis Whitehead
The article Ennis Whitehead you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ennis Whitehead for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Market-Garden
Hey Hawkeye, your eyes over at Market-Garden would be appreciated. Got an editor questioning the 'Allied operational failure' result, and also adding/removing commanders to the infobox. I can't remember what consensus was on commanders in the infobox, however. Skinny87 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Sandbox
Hey Hawkeye, noticed the new article you're working in the sandbox. I don't have many US Airborne sources, but I have Huston's book and it has a couple of pages on Nadzab, about eight in total. Would that be of any help to you? Skinny87 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Thanks for the offer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I just add Huston's info into the sandbox, or do you want to finish it first and then have me add some more refs? Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me finish first, then add some more refs. I always need a few. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, good luck - can't wait to see how it comes along. Skinny87 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near finished but have a go anyhow. The paratroop bit is finished. I still have to write up the capture of Lae, and the development of the base at Nadzab. Also, if you have a map of the Nadzab drop zones \, that would be good... Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review for Kenneth Walker
Hi, i have reviewed the article on Kenneth Walker, and have put some comments on the GA review page. Please feel free to post any comments questions there or on my talk page. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those adjustments. I have passed the article for GA.  Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 22:48, 8 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) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Edmund Herring - I see you overcame a few points during the FAC, so nice job with that. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. 410 Squadron RCAF GA
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I truly appreciate it, and my many thanks! T ARTARUS talk 02:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox results guideline
Hi, considering that you took part in this discussion few days ago, please express your opinion in the straw poll recently initiated. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for assessment
Hi, would you mind striking the entries after you address them? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles D. Anderson
Hello there Hawkeye7. Lordoliver kindly asked me to discuss this with you. I see you feel it is a 'B' but didn't want to "over-ride" me. Here's some details why I think it is still 'start': I feel more info is needed from additional resources for this general, such as expanding on the skimpy Early life and Postbellum sections, that it needs a pic, and that two book summaries are not broad enough coverage. All this I think fails questions #1 and maybe #5. Being an orphan doesn't help much either. However, I would suggest one of you asking for a second opinion right on the assessment page, and I'll abide by their decision. Might want to include links to this discussion and the talk page as well. Kresock (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells ACR
Hi Hawkeye. During the A-Class Review of Henry Wells (general), Nick-D has requested that I elaborate on exactly what a GSO1 and GSO2 do, but neither of us really know (nor have any sources that address such a matter), and I was hoping you did? If you do, and are willing, would you be able to add information on these positions in the appropriate positions of the article? Also, Nick has requested I briefly describe I Corps (mainly the HQ where Wells served, I think) service during the Syria-Lebanon Campaign, but I don't really have the skill or expertise in this area, and I was wondering if you would be willing to briefly add some information on this campaign into the article? If you are too busy or would prefer not to do either or any of these, then please do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll add it tonight. Ultimately, we should create a separate article on British Army staff ranks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, mate. Yes, that is probably the best course of action in the future. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of that, Hawkeye! You've done an excellent job. :) Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Give me a buzz when you are finished with the last few points I raised on Stanley Savige, so I can go through it again and hopefully support. :) As usual, you have done a very good job on the Savige article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All done now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm off to have a second look now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:51, 16 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) 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Landing at Nadzab
Hey Hawkeye - good job on rewriting the article. I totally forgot to add my airborne references to it, so I'll take a look next week (I'm away from my sources atm). About the only think that strikes me with the article is that massive quote in the air operations section - it seems so out of place; it might be comprehensive, but it might be better as being rewritten as normal prose, maybe with some other sources thrown in. I'd imagine it would come up at GAN and so forth if you took it there. Skinny87 (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll re-work it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Entomological warfare
I don't know if you ever saw it but I expanded the section on Canada in the Entomological warfare article per your request on the talk page. Please let me know if it is unsatisfactory.--IvoShandor (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember now. It was one of several hundred articles I graded in a ratings sweep back in January 2009. It was the only one to miss out on a B on the basis of completeness only. It's a B now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nembo Division
Yes its a work in progress I was just getting the links sorted --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ken" Smart
I'm trying to find information about "LTGEN Edward Kenneth Smart DSO, MC (1891-1961)", but I'm not finding much. (Progress to date: User:Pdfpdf/Smart)

In this edit, you recorded that he was promoted to LTGEN in 1940. What was your source?

Later, in this edit, you recorded that he was promoted to MAJGEN in 1942. Same source?

(And I would guess that neither of those sources are on line?)

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are both from the same source, the 1946 Army List of Officers of the Australian Military Forces. It has a full run down of his entire career, including all the postings and promotions, with dates. Not online of course :) but there is a copy in the War Memorial. There was a typo; he was promoted to major general on 13 October 1939 and lieutenant general on 24 October 1940. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "It has a full run down of his entire career" - "Not online of course". - Of course!
 * Is there any point in me trying inter-library loan? (Is the AWM part of the ILL system?) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I could try scanning the page and emailing it to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be great! I don't seem to have your email address, so I assume that means you don't have mine?
 * I have email enabled on WP. (You don't seem to.) However, the WP email interface for anything other than text is tedious. If you email me something short via WP, I'll reply with my contact details, and you can then use your own "real" email software to send it to me where I can read it with a "real" email client.. That is, of course, unless you have a better means of communication?
 * (I must admit, I'm rather keen to get some real information on this guy!) Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A scan of the page Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you very much. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation
Thanks for your assessment of this article. I'm planning to work on it a bit more today - what do you think needs to be expanded/included so it meets criteria B2? Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I only clicked on it just then! The RAAF missing is a glaring omission - fill it in from Stephens or Coulthard-Clark. I think that there is more material worthy of inclusion. Have another look at Grey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Deny Flight
First off, thanks so much for reviewing Operation Deny Flight (we so desperately need GA reviewers as I'm sure you know). Anyway, sorry for the rather long delay in responding to comments (I unexpectedly had to go out of town). I'm just dropping a note here so that you won't think I faded away and forgot about the article. I think I've addressed all your concerns now, but naturally if you see any more issues with the article I'm happy to address them. Anyway, thanks again for reviewing! Cool3 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! That was a very thorough and helpful GA review.  Hope to see you at the FAC when it begins.  Speaking of which, do you have any outstanding concerns before I take it there? Cool3 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its pretty good, and should pass the FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, it's still a "Good article nominee". I've done something wrong... Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: Do you intend to write up Deliberate Force as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

32nd Infantry Division (United States)
Hello. I am trying to find the Good Article review for 32nd Infantry Division (United States). The GAN page says you have put it on hold pending improvements, but I can't seem to find your review of the article. - Ed! (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it on hold while the peer review was ongoing. I've set it back to "under review". I'll post the review for you this evening. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War I
Hi, you forgot to transclude the GA review to the article talk page, but I have fixed that now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Brehon B. Somervell
Hello. I've reviewed the article Brehon B. Somervell for its nomination for Good Article status My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, mate. I just wanted to say thank you very much for all your help with the Military history of Australia during World War I article. You did a very thorough GA review on the article and fixed up many of the points I'd missed/didn't know anything about. It would not be a GA without the work you (and a number of others) did on it. Cheers.

You probably have a few of these floating around the place, but please accept this Barnstar as a token of my appreciation.

Forgotten GA template
Heya! When you passed Military history of Australia during World War I as a GA, you forgot to remove the GAReview template, which happened to move up to my. So unless you feel like reviewing that too (*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*), it might be a good idea to remove it so someone else can review it. :) Cheers, henrik  • talk  18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent
Hey. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyril Clowes
G'day mate, noticed when captioning a picture of Frank Bladin with a bunch of Australian generals that Cyril Clowes has no WP article as yet. Being on the verge of completing my first Navy senior officer article (Henry Burrell), thought I might have a go at a senior Army officer, and Clowes seems like an interesting one. However he might well be high on your list and I wouldn't want to start on this if you're preparing an article yourself - just let me know as I'll probably be ready to start it in the next month or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Clowes isn't on my work list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairley
Well done. The next FAs after the breakthrough should be a lot easier now  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:C-47 transport planes loaded for Nadzab .jpg
File:C-47 transport planes loaded for Nadzab .jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:C-47 transport planes loaded for Nadzab.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Markham River Crossing.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Markham River Crossing.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Jacksons Strip.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Jacksons Strip.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Lae AWM015783.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Lae AWM015783.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:MacArthur and Herring AWM150813.jpg is now available as Commons:File:MacArthur and Herring AWM150813.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Mary Herring.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mary Herring.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Morshead.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Morshead & MacArthur Labuan AWM 109060.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Gellibrand at Pozieres.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Gellibrand at Pozieres.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:14 AGH AWM P00812.001.jpg is now available as Commons:File:14 AGH AWM P00812.001.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Armenian refugees 1918.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Armenian refugees 1918.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Korea AWM044755.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Korea AWM044755.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bengari AWM075165.jpeg is now available as Commons:File:Bengari AWM075165.jpeg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1
As you are a historian from Canberra, I wonder if you could help with the issues here.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I
THANKS for the comments one problem I have had all along was a lack of source material, I just started tweaking the article here and there and ended up with how it is today, any help would be appreciated I have nothing at all on Persia (I presume its not the same as Mesopotamia ?) and anything on staff officers would be great. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of the points have now been covered if you would like to recheck the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added sections on staff officers and Persia, and expanded the artillery tactics section. I'll be passing the article as soon as I have finished the copy edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU any tips for going for A class ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The introduction does not summarise the article very well.
 * I'd overhaul the footnotes, which are currently inconsistent in format.
 * The article does not really convey that this was the British Army's largest war, in which it took the most casualties, and ultimately won its greatest victories. So while the article is long, my impulse would still be to expand.
 * Have a look at Military history of Australia during World War I which I think is pretty awesome.

NB: I was struggling with trying to remember why a 1918 Australian division had 108 more Lewis guns than a British one, until I remembered at last that Australian divisions had twelve infantry battalions and not nine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes old field marshalls never fade away just keep drawing their pension thanks for the reminder - By the wat your last comments are not displayed on the talk page but I am unable to see the error Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see it. Have fixed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore the lack of references in the Sinai/Palestine section for the moment. I'll be back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi can I ask your opinion in the A class review its been suggested that the British Army during World War I article is split up as you did the GA review I am interested in your comments. I have also if in case its needed started the British Army uniform and equipment in World War I article which can be added as a See also or stand as its own article. It also been suggested it still needs a copy edit I have asked for one at WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests but this seems pretty stagnant at the moment any suggestions ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Help contacting Hawkeye7
I don't know if this is the proper way to do this, but Hawkeye7 solicits requests for information about his book collection on one of his pages. I would like to ask a question about one item in that collection. How can I send H a private message? My e-mail: cj.delay [at] ca.rr.com. Okay to delete this message. Stargazer1122 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

John Frostbrug
Hi Hawkeye. I've posed a question at Talk:John Frost Bridge that you might be able to help with if you've got time. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AWOL?
What's up? I hope to read more of your articles in the future.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been on vacation. But I'm back now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells (general)
Hi Hawkeye. I hope you had a good holiday, and enjoyed your break. :) I was thinking about taking Henry Wells (general) to FAC, but thought I would have the article peer reviewed first and Nick-D suggested I contact you to see if you had any further sources or information at your disposal on Wells? Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:35, 19 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)

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)

Battle of Morotai‎
Hi, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai‎ article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dragoon
Hey Hawkeye. I see you're working on Dragoon - good luck! Now, in order to complete my Good Topic attempt at British WWII airborne operations, I need to do the joint British-US airborne operations that took part in Dragoon. So, I was hoping I could get your opinion on the matter. The only article on it at the moment is Operation Dove, concerned with the glider landings and nothing more than a stub. However, the glider landings were only a tiny part of the overall operation. So, I was thinking of writing the airborne operation article in my sandbox and renaming it as 'Allied airborne operations in Southern France', as I can't seem to find if it had an actual operational name (I thought it might have been Operation Rugy at one point, but I'm unsure) and eventually merging the Op. Dove stub into it when it goes into mainspace. What are your thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good luck - I'll need it. It'll probably be my largest article. The airborne operation was only a small part, so I'll be very happy indeed to have a separate article on it. The main airborne operation (by the 2nd Parachute Brigade and 517th Parachute Infantry) was codenamed ALBATROSS. The supporting small morning after glider operation was BLUEBIRD. There was also a smaller operation by the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion called CANARY. The main glider operation was DOVE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, yes, thanks. My new Osprey book I'll be using has their names. So, merge Dove into an article entitled 'Operation Albatross' covering all the airborne operation elements - does that sound about right? Skinny87 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I look forward to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Would it be okay if I pinched some of your 'Strategy' stuff as background for the article - general background, before I go into detail about the airborne background and planning? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. There will probably eventually be three paragraphs on strategy, along the lines of ANVIL-is-on, ANVIL-is-off, ANVIL-is-on again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, here's the beginning of it, anyway. Quite an extensive bibliography, which I hope to expand even further as times goes on. If you need anything from them for the airborne portion of the main Dragoon article, just ping me and I'll go through them. I think I'll be leaning fairly heavily on Warren for the moment (as soon as I can find the link to the damn thing on the USAF website), as Alderman and Breuer are awful books; heavy on the hyperbole and narrative, and almost violently anti-British when referring to the slow speed of the British brigade. Hopefully, I can hunt down Zaloga's Operation Dragoon from Osprey to balance things out. Skinny87 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Warren is the best source. I think you'll find it here. If you can't get it to download, I have a copy I can make available. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you've save dme a long and annoying hunt. You're the best. thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hurgh...Dragoon has a hellishly complex gestation period before it all got sorted out. I'm finding that Warren's first few pages on who agreed with Anvil/Dragoon and when to do it is contradicting what you've got from your later sources. What's the best source to use for the development of Anvil to Dragoon from May '43 until about mid-1944, just before it begins? I started to use Warren, but his overview stuff seems quite dated. Skinny87 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since your article only really requires a summary, use Clarke, Riviera to the Rhine, pp. 1-22. Clarke finished up one of the Vietnam volumes and drew the task of completing the last of the Green Books, almost 50 years after the first was published. Smith had been working on Riviera to the Rhine since the Vietnam War but had retired in 1983. Clarke's a good historian and approachable; you can email him if you get really into it. By writing last, he had the advantage of having read all the other stuff.


 * I'm going to use Clarke as my template and supplement it with Matloff and Ehrman. Ehrman was the British grand strategy historian; Matloff was the American one. During the war, There was a long fight between the British on one hand and the Americans and Soviets on the other over the merits of the operation, which became, in Ehrman's words, "a barometer of strategic thought". After the war, popular histories have re-fought this battle over and over. Books are still coming out... Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I see what you mean. I'm having trouble reconciling Clarke with Warren's details on airborne planning, so I'm going to look at both and see if they (broadly) agree with each other on how Anvil/Dragoon evolved. Here's hoping it goes well...Skinny87 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is Riviera to the Rhine the same as 'Clarke and Smith' in your bibliography, with the hyperlink? Or is it another work, hopefully online? Skinny87 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Clarke and Smith. You can read it or download a copy from here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break
Well, I've written the Background section with Clarke & Smith and Warren, and I'm well into the Preparation section now - basically everything that leads upto the actual planning for Albatross, ie the confusion over whether there would be an airborne operation, how many transport aircraft there would be, etc. Hopefully it all looks okay. By the by, do you know where you're going to get your information about what German forces opposed Dragoon from? I haven't looked in depth yet, but it's been my experience that info on German dispositions is usually less thorough than that of the Allies. Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarke & Smith, Chapter IV is very good. Supplemented by the German Official History (Boog et al) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the official history online? If not, I'm guessing my local library won't have it :) Skinny87 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of it is, at Google. Your best bet is to follow my oclc link and see what libraries in your area have a copy. At £165.00 at copy, not too many libraries can afford it.
 * How come there is no Category:Airborne Operations? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll have to do that, then, along with whatever I can get from the other sources. There is a category called 'Airborne forces' that I've been using, but you're right; creating one would be a good idea at some point. Skinny87 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My google books always decides to blank all the pages in a book if I scroll through looking for things for too long; don't know if that's the same for you. You wouldn't happen to have a page range for the Dragoon stuff, do you? Only I'm getting close to when I'll need to start writing the German preparation section
 * pp. 653-662. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for the help. Skinny87 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate writing strategy sections. Couple of things appear to me. Firstly, no mention of when Anvil was renamed Dragoon, and secondly it doesn't seem to highlight the controversy around Dragoon; Churchill's only mentioned once, at the very end, and he did a lot of grumbling about Dragoon and how it was a waste of time, all the way upto a few days before the invasion began. Same for the British Chiefs of Staff and so forth. It just seems like the section is almost ignoring all the controversy - unless you're going to have that all in another section? But I think putting it in 'Strategy' would be the best bet. Otherwise it's fine - but yeah, needs more on the whole controversy and arguing angle, I think. Skinny87 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anvil was renamed Dragoon on 1 August 1944 - after the debate. I haven't decided where to put that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and looking over the Strategy section again, it doesn't seem like yours and mine really match up, despite me taking mine from Clarke and Smith mostly. You've no mention of Devers refusing to reallocate the Anvil supplies and ordering Patch to continue planning, or that Anvil/Dragoon was supported more after the fighting in Normandy bogged down. Skinny87 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This will be covered in a section entitled "Logistics". There's also a section on "Planning". I'll add one on "controvery" too. The article is going to be quite long at this rate... Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I thought that might be how you were going to do it. Might I suggest including them as subsections of a 'Background' section? Might be helpful. And tell me about the length - I'm at 40kb already and only about half-way through, maybe less! Skinny87 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've completed my German Preparation section. I think it's basically complete, although there were a number of pages from Boog that weren't available on Google Books. Feel free to nick any of it you need for Dragoon, or tell me if anything's missing. Skinny87 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like it a lot. I'll probably nick the whole section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Friend of mine linked me to a Stackpole Book on the Normandy campaign that has a lot on Sragoon, including even more details on the Wehrmacht formations (which you might use? I think I have enough detail) and a lot of good stuff on how poor secrecy was for the Allies prior to the landing. You can find it here:[]. Skinny87 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick question: in each cite, should it Boog, p. x or Boog et al, p. x? Not sure which one it is. Skinny87 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely Boog et al. The actual section in question was written by Vogel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a total of one photo for Operation Rugby, which is annoying; I don't want to have to rely on 'generic' photos of Dakotas and the like. Do you have any ideas where I could find any? Imperial War Museum hasn't got any, but I can't figure out how to use the USAF website to search for photos there. Skinny87 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For a start, you can check out the [Australian War Memorial http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp]. It has some photographs of the airborne operation. I was intending to lift some images from Clarke. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Found three of them; they say they're PD, and I know there's an AWM tag you can add, but it also says you have to enquire about reproducing; is that just for magazines and the like? Also, for Dragoon as a whole, Commons has three or four pictures you can use as well. Skinny87 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Butting in, you can ignore the AWM admonition to ask permission to reproduce, as it's PD - just use the AWM tag to allow a link to their site and the image, and use PD-Australia for licensing (and, assuming the images are older than 1946, PD-1996 if putting on Commons to avoid questions about US copyright). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:16, 2 November 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) 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to put Waddy
Hi mate, interested in your opinion here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
For what it's worth, I think your answer to Question 14 is spot on&mdash;it's pretty much exactly the same as I feel about blocks. Unfortunately, I cannot retract my oppose over the copy-paste issue because it's something I feel strongly about, but if you maintain this well-informed view about the blocking policy then I will probably be able to support you if there is a second RfA. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Juggling
Yes. It didn't fit there very well, but I couldn't think of a better solution. (Your solution is better.) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help for this one. Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I found it interesting; I'm glad you found my interest helpful. Cheers Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question in the edit summary, Denzil MacArthur-Onslow was an Australian general of the post-WWII period. After commanding an armoured brigade in WWII, he commanded the BCOF in Japan. He was promoted to major general in 1955. James and George, both major generals, were his uncles. I think you confused him with one of them. He's also often confused with his son Ion, also actually named Denzil, the Pura Mock and Daffodil Marg man. And yes, they are related to those MacArthurs and those Onslows from Australian History class. The family almost merits a volume of the ADB all to themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On the sheep's back ...
Lol! (What's that one-liner? ''"Nepotism starts at home"!)

You've stimulated my interest!

So, according to WP, we have:


 * (1) Brig Gen George MacLeay MacArthur-Onslow CMG, DSO (2 May 1875 - 12 September 1931)
 * great grandson of (5) John MacArthur.
 * he had 5 siblings.
 * "Like his brother, he was aide de camp to the Governor General from 1920 to 1923 and commanded the 1st Cavalry Division from 1927 to 1931." - a) I expact that's very poor and ambiguous grammar!! (e.g. I bet they won't both ADC at the same time.); b) Which brother?
 * (2) Maj Gen James William Macarthur-Onslow VD (7 November 1867 – 17 November 1946)
 * husband of (3) Enid Emma Macarthur
 * son of (7) Arthur Alexander Walton Onslow
 * son of (8) Elizabeth Onslow (nee Macarthur)
 * father of (10) son of (2)&(3)
 * father of (11) daughter1 of (2)&(3)
 * father of (12) daughter2 of (2)&(3)
 * (3) Enid Emma Macarthur
 * wife of (2) James Macarthur-Onslow
 * granddaughter of (4) Hannibal Macarthur
 * mother of (10) son of (2)&(3)
 * mother of (11) daughter1 of (2)&(3)
 * mother of (12) daughter2 of (2)&(3)
 * (4) Hannibal Hawkins Macarthur (1788 - 1861)
 * nephew of (5) John Macarthur
 * grandfather of (3) Enid Emma Macarthur
 * (5) John Macarthur (wool pioneer) (1766 – 11 April 1834)
 * 'He spelled his surname "M'Arthur" for most of his life. He occasionally varied it to "MacArthur". The spelling "Macarthur" (with a lower case "a") became established only very late in his life.'
 * second son of (6) Alexander Macarthur
 * uncle of (4) Hannibal Hawkins Macarthur
 * (6) Alexander Macarthur
 * father of (5) John Macarthur
 * (7) Arthur Alexander Walton Onslow
 * father of (2) James Macarthur-Onslow
 * husband of (8) Elizabeth Onslow (nee Macarthur)
 * (8) Elizabeth Onslow (nee Macarthur) (1840-1911):
 * daughter of (9) James Macarthur;
 * granddaughter of (5) John Macarthur
 * mother of (2) James Macarthur-Onslow
 * (9) James Macarthur
 * father of (8) Elizabeth Onslow (nee Macarthur)
 * (10) son of (2)&(3)
 * (11) daughter1 of (2)&(3)
 * (12) daughter2 of (2)&(3)

OK! Now we come to your information:
 * (13) Denzil
 * James and George, both major generals, were his uncles.
 * So (1) & (2) were brothers?
 * So (1) George was a 2*, not a 1*?
 * (14) his son Ion, also actually named Denzil

Hmmm. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you check out User:Choess/Onslow tree? Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

George

 * Just had a quick glance. Looks like it needs to be studied!
 * Back to James, George and Denzil
 * 1) Q: Who was Denzil's dad?
 * A: Francis Arthur - a third brother
 * http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Generals/onslow.html
 * The MacArthur-Onslows were also a military family. George's brothers James and Arthur served in the South African War where James was mentioned in dispatches. James also served with the AIF, as a colonel with the Sea transport Service. He was aide de camp to the governor general from 1902 to 1909 and 1917 to 1920 and retired from the army with the rank of major general in 1925. Arthur's son, Major General Sir Denzil MacArthur-Onslow served with the 2nd AIF and was promoted to major general in 1955.
 * 2) Wikipedia article George MacArthur-Onslow says he was Brig Gen. So does the above webpage. Also adb
 * Q:Have you got a quotable reference I can use to support Maj Gen?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops. You're right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly! ;-) I have no idea. It's just I couldn't find any evidence to the contrary ...
 * Denzil interests me - it's an unusual name for an Australian. "More investgation required". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. Monkey is happy  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, welcome to the club. Feel free to ping me if you need any help! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I could not have done it without you guys! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew! Congratulations, and let me know if I can help.  WP:NAS is thataway → - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll jump in on the cliche: congratulations and feel free to message me if you need help. :-) Haha. All the best, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew! Congratulations, you kept your cool and prevailed! (this RfA had me talking to myself, which is not a good sign for and old guy) You will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA -- Samir 02:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Royce DYK
You might want to take a look at the Template_talk:Did_you_know page where I suggested your new article about Ralph Royce. I used his cold weather ops as the hook, but you may want to use another fact as the hook, or you may want to use different wording. Feel free to suggest an alternate hook of your preference. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I haven't had a DYK article in ages. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * Your talk page says the last one was January, ten months ago. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai FAC
Hi, in the FAC on this article an editor has expressed concern about Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area Volume II – Part I being used as a major source. Would you be able to comment on this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford
Hi, just a query, what is the significance in the milhist assessment of "WWII=yes|British=yes" for the article RNLB Mary Stanford ? - just wondering ClemMcGann (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It marks the article as being of interest to those WikiProject Military history/Task forces. They'll probably take notice when you nominate it for a review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply, I had asked MBK004 a week ago. I will nominate it for a review, soon.  I appreciate interest in the article, but am a little uncomfortable as it was not British and had a quite time during the war.  ClemMcGann (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Henry Wells (Australian Army officer)
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sturdee
Good heavens! You've been a "busy boy", haven't you. Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have to finish off WWII. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle
Thank you for the helpful information. Would you have the source citations where you got the information? If so, I can add the info to the list. Cla68 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work on the citations and additional details. Thank you very much for helping improve the information. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Pearl Ridge
Hi, Hawkeye7. Thanks for your copyedit and comments on Battle of Pearl Ridge. I've made some tweaks based on the points on the talkpage. When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look and letting me know whether it needs more work to get it up to B class standard? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

World War I (I mean Great War!) Contest
Hi mate, why don't you join the World War I Contest? It really needs more participants and you have another day or so to register - I mean you've got plenty of runs on the board this month with all those article subjects like Mackay and Cannan coming under its scope... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh alright then. I was going to join, but someone else grabbed the flag ;) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, that'd be me wouldn't it...? Well you could always do what I've done for the Wikicup 2010 and use the Federation flag for something different: Australian Federation Flag.svg  Or I s'pose Canberra has one if you get desperate... :-/ Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, I am terribly sorry that I've managed to check and award points on your contest submission page only today. As you have created your submission page yourself I did not watchlist it and did not notice your contest contributions. It was just today that I figured out something strange that you still had 0 points in the chart, as I knew you are a prolific and active editor. Apologise again and see the notes I left on your submission page (few of your submissions are not valid because they were not made during the contest period). Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CGS
Thanks for this. I saw that he was born in UK, and missed the fact that he was Australian.

Was Squires also Australian?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he was British. I looked it up - he was a British major general gazetted as a local lieutenant general. They paid him twice what an Australian general got too, leading to John Curtin asking in the House if he was twice as good as an Australian general. Whereas Billy Birdwood was a British officer who was gazetted as a lieutenant general (and later general) in the AIF in 1916. Both should therefore be in the list if one is. Legge was also born in the UK btw... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "They paid him twice what an Australian general got ... " - Who were "they"? (One would have thought Curtin would have been one of "them".)
 * The Menzies government. Curtin was Leader of the Opposition at the time. He knew dick about defence but regular soldiers fed him all the right questions to ask.
 * "who was gazetted as a lieutenant general (and later general)" - And later still as Australia's first FM!
 * He was promoted to FM in the British Army in 1925, but only held it as an honorary rank in the Australian Army. Whereas Phillip Mountbatten aka the Duke of Edinburgh was a foreigner appointed to the substantive rank.
 * "Both should therefore be in the list if one is." - That sounds logical to me. (But what would I know?)
 * "Legge was also born in the UK btw..." - Bloody Poms!
 * That's just what Legge would have said.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened between 12 Jan 1905 and 1 Jan 1909? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I was just writing that up. McCay thought that "Chief of the General Staff" might give some people (well Colonel Bridges) grandiose ideas, so he made the three members of the Military Board the Deputy Adjutant General (Hoad), the Chief of Intelligence (Bridges) and the Chief of Ordnance (Parnell). Bridges just staked out the revolving door outside the Minister's office (there were ten Ministers for Defence between 1901 and 1910) until he got a more pliable minister who gave him the title in 1909. There was no CGS before 1909.
 * Ironically, Bridges made McCay his Director of Military Intelligence in 1907 and McCay built himself a whole empire... Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. "The more things change, the more they are the same"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

James Whiteside McCay
I've watched with interest as you've built this article up - wonderful job! I'd be glad to help in any way I can; it looks fairly close to GA already, really. (And thanks for the birthday wishes!) Frickeg (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some info: when McCay accepted a position in the Reid ministry, he effectively ended his connection with the Protectionists (scroll down to Corinella). He officially joined the Anti-Socialists in 1906. Not sure how you want to work this in, so thought I'd let you know here rather than add it. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. Here's a real mess: Electoral district of Castlemaine and Maldon. I've checked all the bios, and the terms of office overlap! Arrggh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Victorian state electorates are in a bit of a shemozzle at the moment. In the 19th century some electorates had two members at once, though, so that could be it. I know more about NSW electorates, and Electoral district of West Sydney is an example of how I dealt with multiple members on those pages. For NSW, though, there's also the benefit of having an entire database of election results compiled by the magnificent Antony Green, so that was a help. To my knowledge there isn't a similar resource for Victorian elections ... yet ... Frickeg (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to see this at FAC. Could you look at including the info above about the Anti-Socialists, etc.? When McCay ran against Crouch in Corio in 1906, he was running as an Anti-Socialist, not as a Protectionist. If you need any more info or sources on this particular snippet let me know. Frickeg (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My source says the following: "While McCay remained a Protectionist, he continued to align himself in parliament with McLean's group of ant-socialist protectionists." I don't know enough about the politics of the period to know whether the anti-socialist protectionists were ever a party, or of McCay was ever one of them. Got a source? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stolen "International travels"
Hi Hawkeye7! I've copy-pasted "International travels" from your user page (with the different countries, of course). Is that o.k.? If you want, you can change background color or something else in that section on my user page..., or if you do not approve it at all, I will remove it. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problems. I lifted it from someone else but I forget who. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Kebeta (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jungle divisions
Thanks for your changes to the Australian Army in World War II - please feel free to rip into the training and doctrine section which I just started and am sure is hopelessly simplistic. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've contributed a section on equipment and one on training and doctrine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; they look great Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)