User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2009

Happy New Year!
Well done on Goble. A great read.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, and a very Happy New Year to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alister Murdoch
The article Alister Murdoch 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:Alister Murdoch for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian. Just give me a shout when you have ammended the issues in the above as best you can, and I'll go have another look. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette url has changed
The Gazette have just completely changed their url scheme, the basic search page is now at http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search, I've just updated the template so everything should keep working, but you may need to force a purge of your cache to see the updated version, and if you spot any problems this may be the reason. For reference, the notarchive= parameter is no longer required. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

 * Thanks for organising that, Roger. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this! - I think I made all but one of those edits with the wrong date! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, think nothing of it - reminded of what cheque books used to look like every January (that is, when we still used cheque books)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Director WAAF succession box
Hi Ian. That's fine; I mainly added it as the area looked a little sparce. ;) If you believe the addition of a succession box to be redundant, then by all means remove it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If she was essentially the only Director of WAAAF, then there is deffinately no need for a succession box. Thanks for the update. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

re: McNamara
Hi Ian. In Robert Macklin's Bravest: How some of Australia's greatest war heroes won their medals, it states that McNamara became deeply resentful of his treatment by the RAAF and Australian Government, and decreed that on his death his VC not be returned to Australia. After McNamara's death, his family later donated his VC to the RAF Museum in London, so my guess is that it would still be there. Perhaps checking their website might help? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, checking the RAF Museum website came up with a whole lot of nothing, but victoriacross.org.uk also states it is in the RAF Museum. Hope this helps. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, great minds... I decided to go to Dymocks at lunch today on spec and found that same book! Was going to post when I got back to save you the trouble but had meetings all arvo so my apologies for that.  Anyway you won't have to give me the pages numbers and ISBN, etc  - thanks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Kingsbury

 * Thank you, you're very welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War II
Hi Ian, Would you be able to have a look at this article and let me know what MOS changes are needed before this can be nominated for a FAC? My last FA nomination (Timor Leste Defence Force) was before MOS compliance became so strongly enforced and I'm sure that there are issues concerning emdash usage, photo placement and the like which will need to be fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - as you might've noticed over at Bill Bostock's FAC, I'm picking up new things all the time...! BTW, tks for your judicious edits on that article as well, Nick - grammatically and content-wise they're a definite improvement (only wish I could say I inserted the Freudian slip deliberately...)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are a few things:
 * My understanding is that all page number ranges require endashes (this is one rule I don't personally see the point of, especially when you're using the equivalent-sized dash anyway, but haven't bothered arguing - I just do it from acratch in all my articles now in case I decide to take them beyond B-Class).
 * Your use of emdashes in place of parentheses, e.g."...two RAAF squadrons &mdash; No. 3 Squadron and No. 450 Squadron &mdash; and numerous individual Australians..." appears sound though I generally see them appearing sans surrounding spaces, i.e. "...two RAAF squadrons&mdash;No. 3 Squadron and No. 450 Squadron&mdash;and numerous individual Australians...". However I'm not certain if that's required.
 * Your photo placement looks fair to me in that you're doing your best to alternate while also avoiding left-hand pics immediately following third-level headings. However in addition to this last rule forcing you to have consecutive pics on one side, a number of them are also 'facing outwards' as opposed to the preferred 'inwards'.  In my experience (and IMHO) this last is the least important rule to follow but it's nice to achieve if possible. I'm actually experimenting on a version of the article in my sandbox which sticks religiously to the 'alternating sides' rule without flouting the 'left-hand pics not immediately following third-level headings' one, to see what can be achieved, and will let you know how it goes.
 * Most citation templates seem to now display literally the value in the accessdate parameter, e.g. "accessdate=2008-10-24" shows up as "Retrieved on 2008-10-24". This can generally be avoided by using accessyear and accessdaymonth, e.g. "accessyear=2008|accessdaymonth=24 October" should display as the more aesthetically pleasing "Retrieved on 24 October 2008" - though I notice Cite Web is now completely ignoring accessdaymonth and only displaying accessyear or accessdate (but the last only comes out nicely if you go "accessdate=24 October 2008", not "accessdate=2008-10-24" - I'm afraid these citation templates are becoming chronically unstable...)
 * FWIW, that's all I can see with this fine article at the moment...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - I appreciate your advice on this. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob - here's a link to that version I promised with all pics alternating but not violating the rule about left-hand pics under third-level headings, so see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, though the New Guinea offensives section looks a little bit crowded on my 24" monitor (which normally means that it would be fine on normal monitors!). I'm afraid that I just buggered up your ability to copy and past that version into the article though by coverting the dashes to endashes. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you got all enthusiastic there didn't you, just as I finished my sandboxing! There's more work in the endashes so obviously the thing to do is graft the individual pic re-positioning on to the live version when we're so disposed - the point is that it looks like it can be done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll make these changes in the next round of fiddling. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi Ian. I was debating whether to take John Whittle through FAC, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion before I decide to do so and figured you were probably one of the best to ask. There is quite limited scope for further expansion to the article so I don't think that will be much of a problem, but rather prose would be the main issue (as it usually is). I was wondering if you would be able to have another look through the article (you were the GA reviewer, if you remember), and be able to provide me with any comments on what needs to be done, or if it requires a copy-edit; basically anything you think that would hinder the article in FAC, or whether I should go for FAC at all. If you are too busy or do not wish to, that is fine; please do not feel obligated to do so. Which ever way, thanks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, detail-wise it should be fine - it's almost identical in length to Stanley Goble, my shortest biographical FA to date, which went through without complaint. As far as MoS goes, I'd suggest checking immediately above this for the same things I mentioned to Nick, if you haven't already. Over at the William Bostock FAC, they've now mentioned non-breaking spaces before ellipses, so check that review too. Let me know when you're satisfied with the article re. all those, and I'll be happy to read over it again from a prose perspective and make any suggestions or minor copyedits there. In general though, I think it'll be worth going for FAC with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all of the above have already been addressed; I found out about the non-breaking spaces before ellipses not to long ago myself, I think a reviewer brought it to my attention during the Blair Anderson Wark FAC. If you don't mind having a read again to pick up any prose issues, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, will try and do so in next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks immensely for this, Ian; I really appreciate your input. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and nomination completed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

William Ellis Newton
Saw that you signed up for this on WP:MHCON. That's great! He was one of Keith Miller's cricket mates in their older days. were you thinking of doing Keith Truscott as well? Another Miller buddy, he was Miller's captain at high school. HAve you heard of Neville Reeves DFC? He was Miller's CO. I wonder why there is no article there.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 07:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, my parents knew Bill Newton after he joined the Air Force. I have pics of him with them at Wagga, one of which I'll probably use in the updated article. Funnily enough they never talked about Truscott, and there's a few articles I've got in mind before I get to his, but it's on my long list anyway... 'Fraid I don't know Reeves at all, none of my major refs seem to mention him... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reeves was RAF from UK btw... YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on the ACR btw.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Response
Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

 * Very kind of y'all - thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries Ian - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian, it's just a thought but with the coordinator elections coming up you might consider standing. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, per my comments at the workshop, I'm now even more convinced we should only hold elections once a year (so I wouldn't have to consider now)...! No, seriously, very nice of you to suggest it, Roger, though I fear it could give The War of the Roses a whole new meaning if I took on any further obligations at WP, since there are still plenty of articles to which I want to dedicate time. However, never say never and, if I did go for it, I'd certainly give it my best. Thanks again, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sybil Irving
Hi Ian, FYI I've created this article as a fairly lame stub. I'm planning on expanding into something more satisfactory tomorrow. It's interesting to see that Irving is also in the Oxford Companion while Stevenson isn't. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you do mean the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History don't you, mate? Stevenson's there on page 606 - I used it in the article, it's where I got Irving's quote...! However, you were right about ADB and how weird their selection criteria is, valuable a resource as it is. The first time I became aware of that was when I found an entry for Bill Bostock, but none on George Jones (sweet revenge for Bill...)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had a quick squiz, well done getting it under way in any case - and born in Vic Barracks?! Jeez, talk about an army brat...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Irving has her own article on pg 287 and also gets a para in the article on the AWAS on pgs 70-71. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just belatedly expanded this, and thought that it or AV2767 Crusader (also my work) would be the best new Australian military history article today until I came across Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) - that's an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're too kind, Nick - I went into the Hewitt one not certain whether I'd end up with something of the detail of a solid B/GA or, on the other hand, maybe a potential A. As it's turned out, I think it has a shot at the latter (evidentally you do too, tks for the vote of confidence as always). Irving looks good, do we have a "Women in the Australian military" cat yet...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about that, there's one with that exact (and highly logical) name - and it now has two new members...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I just started Women in the Australian military. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great start, Nick - well done! Actually, make that three new members for the cat, just added Julie Hammer, which turned out to be a very decent B-class article and have just tagged as such - met her a few years ago BTW, when I was doing IT with the Air Force (brush with fame)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Leonard G. Shepard
Thank you, Mate! About the time I lose faith in the system, along you come with all sorts of suggestions about how to make 'ole Lenny' a better article. When I first posted a request for a peer review I figured that I would get a few replies with some specific ideas for improvement. No suggestions, but someone did bump it from a Stub to a B-Class. My problem was I didn't know why!

Anyway, thank you for your fair critique and I have already made several changes that you suggested. Still looking for a couple of citations though.

BTW, sorry to hear about Australia's trouble with the hot weather and all the wildfires. I hope the weather breaks in your favor.

Cuprum17 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks mate - and thank you also for your thoughts re. the fire disaster that's happening at the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Backstage Pass: Powerhouse Museum
-You are recieving this message because you are listed as interested in wiki-meetups in Sydney-

The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.

Would you like to come along?

Signup and learn more here: www.Wikimedia.org.au/wiki/backstage pass

Date & Time: Friday the 13th of March @ 10am. BYO laptop. Where: Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo. map

Hope to see you there, Witty Lama 05:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Frank Hubert McNamara
Hello. I've reviewed the article Frank Hubert McNamara for its nomination for Good Article status. The article easily fulfilled the good article requirements and I have passed it. (The fact that it was already A-Class for WikiProject Military history made the review easy.) Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review Walter Nowotny
Thanks for your constructive help. I believe that I addressed all the issues here WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Walter Nowotny. If you have the time please revisit and check what you think. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clare Stevenson
Hi, considering that the article had two supports and issues from two different editors resolved, there was enough consensus to pass the review. Anyway, this is not a very common practice, but this time I wanted to clear the ACR backlog a bit. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool - like I said, not complaining...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Nhung
Hi mate, just reviewed and passed this as GA. Apart from a couple of trivial items that I took care of, couldn't find anything to change - well done! One thing, could you just check that I've listed it appropriately in terms of family/given name at Good articles / Military people? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. I don't intend to take this article further, I don't think it can be with lack of sources. It already failed on a rather optimistic attempt at A/FA before.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, i've just made the corrections in the article history template. The article was failed as it didn't reach consensus in order to promote (in that period, if articles didn't receive 3 or more supports within a short period, we were strictly failing their reviews). Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)
--Dravecky (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell
Hi, just a note to say thankyou very much for your comments on and support for the article on Murray Maxwell, which has just passed at FAC.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, congratulations! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here for your copy-edit and support of John Whittle, which has also just passed, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, Bryce - I look forward to the FAC for Tom Derrick, which I think may be your magnum opus (thus far)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination of Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)
I will be reviewing this article today, and will leave some comments on the review subpage. Regards,MarquisCostello (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed and passed your article, and have added it to the list etc. There is a comment for improvement on the review subpage. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to do that, Marquis. Re. See Also section, although I have no prob with them, they do seem to be frowned on at A/FA level as people tend to argue that anything you'd put in such a section should be referred to and linked in the main body, making the See Also redundant. If there's anything you feel should be referred to inline but isn't yet, pls don't hesitate to point it out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Your use of inline links is excellent anyway. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Williams and the Palestine Brigade
I have responded to the comment you left on my talk page at Talk:Richard Williams (RAAF officer). Cheers. Greenshed (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

William Anderson (RAAF officer)
Hi Ian. I've been doing some work on Staff colleges. The RAAF Staff School at Mount Martha preceeded the (single service) RAAF Staff College at RAAF Base Fairbairn, which got merged into the Joint Australian Command and Staff College sub-section of the Australian Defence College. The interesting and relevant bit of http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/acsc_history.htm is the section titled "RAAF Staff College History" - the rest of the page is irrelevant. It took me some minutes to determine this. (i.e. finding the needle in the haystack.) Hence, with this edit, I thought it would be more useful to draw the reader's attention to that section, rather than deposit them at the top of the page and let them guess why they're looking at the page. Perhaps you can come up with a third and better way to do the job? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, fine the way you've done it. Sorry, I realise now I'd thrown the baby out with the bathwater in my last edit, which sought to restore and extend the friendlier website labels and date formats, but also lost your more precise description of that bit of material. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Tks Ed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3* CCOSC
Hi Ian. Young Bryce tells me that: "I'm working on Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells myself." As Wells was the first incumbent of a position nominally senior to the 3* single service chiefs, I wondered if Bryce had come across anything discussing how well/badly the COSC worked with the Chairman being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs. I seem to remember that you're a bit of a "Scherg" fan. Have you any knowledge/thoughts/opinions on how well/badly AM F Scherger managed for 4 years in the CCOSC position as a 3*, and/or why he was promoted to ACM, and/or if "being a 4* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs" was a better or different situation than "being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs"? (I notice it was another 10 years after Scherger before they abolished the COSC and created CDF with command authority, but never-the-less, the CCOSC remained a 4* position during those 10 years ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No major revelations about Scherger in this position I have to admit. He was extended in the position twice, on both occasions by unanimous vote of the powers-that-were, to serve for a total of five years, and only in his last year was he given the 4-star rank. So clearly he did what was expected of him and, just as clearly I think, he seemed to enjoy doing it. However you're quite correct that, even after being promoted to ACM and clearly being senior to the service chiefs, the CCOSC position still had no statutary authority over those chiefs - who, I understand, also had no personal authority over their respective services, exercising their powers as effectively chairmen of boards, e.g. the Air Board had the legislated authority over the RAAF, not the Chief of the Air Staff himself. However, if you look at the way the RAAF operated from the beginning, the Air Board was basically a glove and the CAS the hand within the glove - the Air Board generally seems to have moved the way the CAS wanted it to...  Perhaps the COSC operated similarly, if not to the same extent. Remember also that Scherg was described by John Gorton as a "politician in uniform" and probably made things happen as much through the government as through the service chiefs - look how he influenced our early commitment to Vietnam...!
 * I expected you would have something interesting to add. Thank you. Personally, I found that very interesting. The "penny hadn't dropped" that the COSC was simply a reflection/extension of the single service model - recognising that analogy goes a long way towards explaining numerous "mysteries". (However, it doesn't provide Bryce with the answer to the bit of history as to why "they" decided there was a need to create a CCOSC, and why "they" decided it should happen then rather than at some other time. I guess I still have some hunting to do ... )
 * So, it would seem to me that Scherger's promotion to 4* was probably independent of anything to do with what rank CCOSC "should" have; it was probably much more about the fact that he had the abilities of a 4*, and was successfully "doing the job" that "they" wanted done. Would you agree?
 * Cheers and Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my turn for the penny to drop. I should've added that the catalyst for the creation of CCOSC was the Morshead Committee report of 1957, which recommended merging the individual service departments with the Department of Defence, amalgamating the Departments of Supply and Defence Production into one, and creating an overarching ADF commander role. In the event, the first bit had to wait till the early 1970s, the second part was implemented soon after its recommendation, and the third resulted initially in COSC and Chairman of COSC (I think I've got all that right, Nick-D or Hawkeye could verify). I might echo Jeffrey Grey in A Military History of Australia, who notes that in the early years the effectiveness of the CCOSC position at any given time was directly related to the personality of the incumbant, given its lack of legislated authority. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! I expect Bryce will find that information useful! (And incidently, given what you also said above, I find it very interesting.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ribbons

 * While we're on the subject of Scherger, it's been quite a while since we've discussed the service ribbons in military bios and I see that section is still in the Scherger article. As you know, I believe that such sections/pictures don't belong in articles because they constitute list- and image-cruft, and over-balance the article in favour of reletively trivial elements, given that the vast majority of the ribbons are for service or campaign medals that everyone gets for showing up at a particular place and time. I proposed a compromise in the infobox that was more than I think was warranted, yet no-one else seems to be prepared to come to the party on that. The fact is, the Scherger article sticks out like a sore thumb in this respect - none of the simlar CAS or senior RAAF officer articles I've been involved with include it. Note also that all the Australian military bios that people like myself, Bryce and Hawkeye have taken to A-Class and FA over the past few months have eschewed such sections/pictures, which should say something in itself. I have plans to expand and improve the Scherger article to A- and perhaps FA-Class, and I'd like to do so without the encumbrance of the Honours and Awards section. It would be great to have your acquiescence or, even better, your support on this point - for the sake of consistency if nothing else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know your pov. Similarly, you know mine. (viz: People see the string of medals above the left pocket and wonder what they are, what they mean, and what they tell you about the person.) I think we've been around that circle too many times already.


 * "I proposed a compromise in the infobox ... yet no-one else seems to be prepared to come to the party on that." - I don't think that's quite right; my memory is that both I, and the people with similar pov to me, were quite enthusiastic about it, but somebody came up with a technical hitch to that solution, and the conversation didn't continue past that point.
 * My recollection is that you said you were going to look it or other possiblities and come back to the discussion, but that didn't occur - perhaps I misundertood something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right, and no, I don't think you misunderstood. Yes, we did go off and investigate some options, but we didn't come up with anything we were particularly happy with, and so had nothing to add to the discussion ... Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Independent of what actually did happen, let me clarify my pov by saying: I thought, and still think, your proposal was/is a great idea, and I advise that I will enthusiastically accept any and all invitations to any and all parties on the matter. In case there is still some doubt, I will enthusiastically support any practical solution involving "show & hide" in the infobox. (It's unfortunate that this particular line of communication failed ... )


 * "The fact is ... which should say something in itself." - Well yeah, but I would have thought you would have realised by now that getting articles to A-Class and beyond is neither one of my interests nor one of my priorities. My priority and interest is to provide easily accessible interesting and useful information in obvious places where people can find it easily and quickly without having to wade through pages and pages of irrelevant "noise".
 * Nor do I think WP needs to be entirely made up of A- and FA-Class material to be worthwhile, however Stubs and Start-Class article are, by definition, of pretty limited use, so I think our baseline should at least be B-Class, and I don't think I've seen many B-Class articles with these sections either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Nothing to add.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However, I do NOT believe our aims are incompatible; in fact, I think they overlap, and where they don't, I believe they are complementary.


 * Never-the-less, I realise that I am a member of a very small minority group in your realm, (perhaps a group of size one?), and that these are both high priorities and of high interest to the majority. (Vast majority?)


 * Therefore, given your direct request, I feel it would be churlish to obstruct you.


 * However, I'm resistant to the idea that this must result in a "win-lose" outcome. Your infobox suggestion sounded like a "win-win" solution to me (until someone seemed to kill it.) If it can't be practically implemented, then I feel there "must" be some other method to address the wishes of both parties, don't you?
 * I'm also not particularly interested in 'winning' the argument, I know you're just as keen as I am to see that WP is the most useful online encyclopedia there can be. I think the technical concern that was brought up must be pretty rare, as the show/hide-in-the-infobox method is or has been also used by WP:Album to incorporate multiple critical reviews without resulting in an infobox as long as one's arm (that's probably where I got the idea). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. (And you know I'm supportive of the show/hide option.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One idea that occurred to me was to have a separate page with a title like "Sets of medals", and a separate section for each person with the ribbon bar and descriptions. Then, in your A-class article, there could be a sentence that is something like "ACM Scherger's medals are described at Sets of medals. ". What do you think?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, have to admit that even this suggestion brings me back back to my contention that the textual bio is the place to explain where someone served and what they did, rendering the list of service/campaign medals redundant. If your goal is to use the complete set of ribbons and the identification of each medal to serve as shorthand for their career, I can understand that in an article at Stub or Start-Class, where there's little in the way of textual exposition. However, when you've achieved the comprehensiveness of a B, A or FA, you definitely should have been able to describe all that in the body of the article.
 * Well, I only largely agree with you, not completely, but as I have gone off this idea, I don't mind! (Because it would be rather wierd for me to now try to discourage you from it!! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To cut to the chase for this article at least, what I propose is that the present Honours and Awards section be removed and the show/hide in the infobox be instated (per my example here), to at least serve as a test case for ACR when it gets there. If we want to develop policy on this in the wider community, I think it needs to go to the main MILHIST page, not the Oz Task Force one. Back to Scherger, I realise that PalawanOz and perhaps others have been involved in the section here so the second thing I propose is moving this discussion to that artcile's talk page so they have a chance to comment before I change anything in the article. If that gets us back to square one, then we just take it to the main MILHIST page for wider comment then and there, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable plan, but before you/we implement it, I have one more alternative I'd like to investigate. Do you mind holding off for a day or two? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With bated breath...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Post script:

 * I'm just looking for a brief response, not a detailed analysis:
 * What do you (personally) think of the Peter Cosgrove article?
 * (Briefly), what would be the major issues to address to get it to B-class?
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To get to B-class I'd suggest the following:
 * A longer lead section, say one 10-line para hitting all the highlights.
 * Standard bio structure including: an early (pre-military) life section; the military career section (broken down into a few subsections on early career and/or Vietnam, then post-Vietnam and Interfet, then post-Interfet and CDF); and finally a post-military career and/or retirement section. Personal life can either be worked into appropriate spots in the rest of the article or stay as a separate section.
 * Citations look good, just keep that up as the article develops.
 * Be great to get a publicity shot from Defence for the infobox - Nick-D may have advice for fair use methods; alternatively I have prised free-use agreement from Defence for some non-public-domain RAAF portraits and might try that as well.
 * Goes without saying what I think of the Awards section - you see what I mean about over-balancing the article I think - it's as long as the rest! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and with tongue in cheek, I could say "It makes it look great, doesn't it!", but perhaps I won't - I'll just leave well-enough alone ... ;-)
 * Thanks for that. That's quite a bit more than I would have guessed. I think I'l leave such higher pursuits to you experts who know what you're doing, and get back to my experiment! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

label
Speaking of which, what am I doing wrong here? (It's nearly 10 years since I wrote any html!)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How time flies

 * My apologies! I got distracted. (And I expect you had more visible higher priorities which were both of more importance and of more interest to you.)
 * Where do you think were we up to?
 * I think I was going off to do some experiments, and come back. Well, I'm afraid I haven't completed them yet. Is this causing you inconvenience?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was kind of hoping to get Scherg to ACR this month - but then I can still draft the textual additons/updates while you're finishing off your experiments. Just to reiterate, even if it's a variation of the infobox show/hide I proposed as a compromise, it may still get knocked on the head by reviewers at ACR, since it alters the current bio infobox.  I just think that'll have more chance of getting through than the big section with the big pictures that's in some of the articles at present, and I'm still happy to put something like the show/hide compromise to ACR as a test case for incorporating service/campaign medals, in the spirit of consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So although I'm not necessarily holding you up yet, I am inconveniencing you.
 * Right. Well, to quote Maxwell Smart, "OK Chief, I'll get on it right away." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Newton VC
Hi Ian. I possess a copy of Mark Weate's Bill Newton VC: The Short Life of a RAAF Hero, so if there is anything you would like from that just give me a shout. Nice work with the article by the way; I like the addition of the photo from your family's collection. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, thought it was good to have a casual shot of him, the calm before the storm as it were, since it was the year before he was posted to New Guinea. Re. Weate, tks for that too; it's probably in the State or Mitchell Libraries where I go to get stuff, but good to know there's another copy in case. I tend to avoid the full bios so I don't get caught up in too much detail, though I know this particular one isn't a big book (it could hardly be, the guy was only 23!). Once GAN is over I'll think about it if people believe more detail is required for ACR.
 * One small thing, are you planning on putting CMF into all relevant article infoboxes? I tend to think it's enough to mention it in the article body and restrict the infobox to the 'main' service or services. I guess also there's an aesthetic component since RAAF has a flag icon and CMF doesn't, which makes it a bit uneven... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think the inclusion of the CMF is important though, as it still involved the subject's military service. In Newton's case, people might misconstrue that he enlisted in the RAAF in 1938 by looking at his infobox. The flag issue is annoying though; in Charles Scherf's case I just put the Aussie flag in next to the CMF! Up to you though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I've taken up your suggestion on the CMF 'flag', so we'll see how that goes. Actually it sort of makes sense in Newton's case, seeing as he spent almost as much time in CMF as in the RAAF the way things turned out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 7 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) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown


Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on Morotai Mutiny - well-sourced, and great use of images. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merde, that's impressive - many thanks...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hat in ring
Cheer! If you hadn't done that by midnight, I was going to ask you to :) &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Rog - I guess that means I can count on one vote at least...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [Chuckle], &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf (David Bowie album)
Hi Ian, as someone I know has an interest in David Bowie. I was wondering what your thoughts on this are? --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks for asking, mate - added my comment at the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
I loved your opinion of not adding C-Class to the Military History WikiProject, but it seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment I'm not sure what to think, I mean: This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject.
 * But do we really want to have a C-Class?
 * I am really glad to see that the members are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject!
 * But what if this all turns out wrong?


 * P.S. Congrats on your Imperial Napoleonic triple crown! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 04:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tks for that mate. Yes, everyone has their reasons and there are people for whom I have a good deal of respect advocating the adoption of C-Class by MILHIST, though I remain opposed. What will be will be and hopefully no-one gets too discouraged by however it turns out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's what we should hope, that no-one gets too discouraged and that we can all stay together on this even if we don't agree. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

William Ellis Newton
Did you get my email? If you reply I can send you the scans with attachments of the book pages re Miller and Newton.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, yep, just now - tks for the poke! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you have to rply if you want it! I can't send an attachment othe3rwsie  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 06:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I sent the reply before I wrote the above at 3:50 UTC - no bounce, but you didn't get it, huh? Will try again now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem to turn up. You should probably post on my talk. I can be rather forgetful in checking the other pages.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent. From Roland Perry's "Miller's Luck". NB that the author is quite sloppy, per his article the info I added in there about his silliness. So it might pay to be vague. Also notice my patter here.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Perry, does it?! Think I'll use the Air Force News article as well as Miller's Luck to cite the episode. Anyway, many tks for sending that, plus the earlier mentions of Newton in the book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) another cricket official scraping in under the aegis of the RAAF and ADF.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks, always wanted to learn more about Ian Johnson's father... ;-)  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perry usually just lifts his book and plagiarises from everywhere. The only good thing about it is that it is in the borrowing library, I just doublecheck everything in the original with other books and if there's a conflict you know who's wrong.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 07:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hubert McNamara
And done! Skinny87 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate - replied now... Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator
It seems we have our eleventh official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many tks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. Congratulations also on passing the threshold for coordinator-ship! - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

John S. Marmaduke
Thanks I will fatten up the Lead on John S. Marmaduke. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 22:25, 19 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) 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

+

 * Coming from the King of the Featured Articles, that means a lot - thanks a bunch (of bananas)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup time again
Hi all, it's Meetup time again :-) - Hopefully you'll be up for meeting on April 22nd at about 6pm at The Paragon, a pub in Circular Quay. It'll be the usual round of drinks and chit chats, with no particular agenda, just some friendly faces, and a shared interest in Wiki stuff. If you've thought about coming along before, but haven't made it - we'd love to see you - it'll be a relaxed, social chin wag about all things wiki - bring anyone along you fancy, and I hope you can make it :-)

Please do sign up on the meetup page, and do also feel free to nominate an alternative time / date / location if for whatever reason the 21st doesn't work for you - we're an accommodating bunch :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

American forces casualties
I have given my reply and my reasoning at the page for the discussion. I think I have stated a fairly solid reason why the article is needed.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard III
Hi, I reverted your good faith edit. George II was not English (born in England) and I find no reference to his having led troops in battle. Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I see someone else has clarified the situation for you - George II may not have been English but he was indeed the last King of England to lead troops in battle, which was the point being made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks and congrats to you too, Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Congratulations on your election as a Coordinator as well, Ian. I did think it was funny with both Brownell and Cole. I was browsing through the ADB entries searching for articles on flying aces to further Wikipedia's coverage of Aussie aces, when I was surprised to stumble across Brownell. I had come across Brownell before when searching through the AWM's collections, so was quite intrigued. I've had a browse through your "to-do" list, and nothing really crosses over except Charles Eaton. I was asked by User:Newm30 if I was willing to create an article on him in February, so I said yep, I'd look into it but there are a couple of things on my do-do list first. However, I've been thinking about asking you for some time if you would be willing to create the article as you would no doubt give it better justice then myself, so I find it quite ironic to see it on your to-do list! I'd be very happy to have a crack at Middleton's article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian. You might want to vist the coordinator talk page soon and have your say on what Task Forces you are willing to oversee (see here). Also, if you haven't gotten around to creating the other two articles listed at the contest by the end of the month you might want to think about removing them soon, otherwise it will just drag down your average. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, yes, considered that - might just squeeze one in, see how I go. As for the rest, this would coincide with the busiest real-life month for a while, but we'll get there...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

please feel free ...
Dear Ian, Thank you for your note. (Most appreciated.) Thank you also for your "interesting" offer! However, one of the reasons you received my first vote was because historic evidence suggests that situations leading to the opportunity to accept your offer will never arise. Yes, we do have different points of view and different priorities. However, my experience is that we've always been able to discuss them, and you generally support your pov with a logically consistent mostly objective argument. Unlike many WP editors, you don't take your own pov as "the one truth". Best wishes for an enjoyable period of "public service"! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Belated combination "you're welcome/don't mention it/congratulations"...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur William Murphy
Wow. Just wow. Certainly beats My last stab at writing something. Keep up the excellent work :). Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry took so long to respond... Thanks, but I found your last stab at writing something thoroughly engaging, now I've seen it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Progress!!
Fanfare please!

Progress! Perhaps even success? It is not exactly what I was trying to create, but it's sufficiently close for you to get the idea of what I intend. (Original, diff)

So, what do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Murphy strikes again! I think I may just have found an easier solution. (Help:Collapsing)


 * Well, let us see what you think of the above before I experiment further. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took a while to get back to you, mate. Well, I can't anticipate what others will reckon when it comes to GA, A or (hopefully) FA reviews, but I'm happy to leave it with your new method for now. That said, I stick by my earlier comments on the whole subject and am not suggesting that this sort of thing should be added to other such articles (particularly ones I have an interest in!). However I appreciate your work towards a compromise and this is certainly an improvement in that it is not 'in your face', overbalancing the serious info (sorry, I still think that the pics of the ribbons are 'pretty' rather than 'useful', particularly as you can link to the award articles and see not just the ribbons but the medals themselves - but I've said that before!). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sorry it took a while ... " - Hey, you replied! (Eventually.) That has to be a "plus".
 * "I can't anticipate ... " - Hmmmm. Good point. So far I've been addressing an audience of size one. (i.e. you)
 * "but I'm happy to leave it with your new method for now" - Really? "Happy"? That's as good as, or in fact, better than, what I was aiming/hoping for.
 * "That said ... "' - Awwww. I was feeling quite elated there for a few seconds!
 * '"and am not suggesting that this sort of thing should be added to other such articles (particularly ones I have an interest in!)."'' - To quote the Toyota ad, "Bugga". From my pov, the whole point of the exercise was to come up with something that COULD be "added to other such articles". And in particular, "(particularly ones I have an interest in!)." I'm somewhat discouraged by your response. Is there any path to a mutually acceptable solution? Or am I wasting my time and effort?
 * "However I appreciate your work ... " - Thank you for saying so.
 * "(sorry, I still think that the pics of the ribbons are 'pretty' rather than 'useful', particularly as you can link to the award articles and see not just the ribbons but the medals themselves - but I've said that before!)" - Yeah, I know. And I imagine there's little point in me repeating, yet again, a different pov ...


 * Seriously (for a change), I'm keen to find a mutually supported solution, particularly one that BOTH of us want to argue in favour of. I've shown I'm prepared to compromise, as have you. The optimist in me says that there MUST be such a solution. Are you of a similar state-of-mind, or am I wasting your time? (And mine!)
 * By-the-way: Enjoy the hot-cross-buns, but take it easy on the chocolate. Best wishes. --Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The bit about "not suggesting that this sort of thing should be added to other such articles" ("particularly ones I have an interest in" was just an aside, since I'm of course in favour of a project-wide approach) is just following on from the earlier point that it's not only me who has always needed convincing on this subject (are you there, David and Bryce...?!). This is why I suggest we do nothing more for now except put your new collapsible table in the Scherg article, I'll make my enhancements, and then we see how it goes at GAN/ACR/FAC as a guide to whether it may have broader support or not.  I might add that I have great hopes for this article, as the more I look around, the more anecdotes and interesting info I find on the bloke - the other bit of hack work I need to do is prise GNU free licences for some of the pictures I want to use out of RAAF and Australian War Memorial copyright control, a task in itself... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "This is why ... " - Fair enough.
 * "I might add ... " - Yes indeed! It seems he was a remarkably able person, an astute judge of people, a skillful proponent in getting people with conflicting interests to work together productively, and a very effective "politician" (i.e. He was a good leader, not just a good commander).
 * "the other bit of hack work ... " - Hmmmm. That will be a test of your patience, salesmanship and negotiation skills! Mainly a test of your patience, I expect :-( In addition, I wish you lots of good luck - I'm guessing that you may need a lot of it! (BTW: I'd appreciate it if you'd keep me informed of progress.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any progress? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth
I made the changes you proposed. Let me know what else you deem necessary for A-class. Thanks for your constructive help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing else - well done and tks for your efforts! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
-MBK004 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, will review those linked pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown Question
I just saw you do this: User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle/Nominations, but you are listed here: User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle so I don't think you qualify for an upgrade just yet. You currently have 5 sets, and to upgrade need 15 per WP:CROWN. -MBK004 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I though one just started again after the Imperial Napoleonic, forgot there was the Alexander the Great as well...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a level above Alexander, Genghis Khan requires 40 sets. -MBK004 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * What a surprise! ;-) Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks, Roger! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN number for 'Above the trenches'/ Cobby article
ISBN 0-948817-19-4 Harryurz (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian, further to your second query I can confirm Shores has the dates listed as May not April- Cobby's only April claim is on 10 April; all the others (up to 1 June) were listed as in May. Ive also checked the addendum included in the later Shores' volumes covering WW1 aces and theres no correction, so I would assume the May dates are the correct ones. Cheers Harryurz (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Harry. This is cool, it means Newton is the odd one out with the 20/21/30/30 May kills listed as April. However, he agrees with Shore in the total breakdown, and the Official History agrees with Shore and Guttman on the May dates, so with some judicious citing I can make it all work...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks immensely for your contributions to the article, Ian! I never expected you to go to THAT much trouble, but I am extremely glad you did. A very interesting, well composed, yet slightly comical piece; ensuring his promotion by megaphone? Using potatoes as signals? What the ...? I believe this is in order:


 * Very welcome - least I could do since I was the one suggesting we all tackle more RAN bios...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Brownell
Hi Ian, I'm back for some more FAC advice. I've been tossing up on whether to take Raymond Brownell to FAC over the last few days, and thought I would request your opinion on the matter, if you are willing to express it that is. If you have any comments what so ever on the article, I would really appreciate them. However, if you think the article falls short of the criteria please don't hesitate to say so either. If you would prefer not to, then don't feel obligated to do this. Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, sorry I haven't replied sooner, all these ACRs 'n' things...! I think it's probably got the legs. It's kind on the cusp detail-wise for me, but so was John Whittle and so was Stanley Goble and they got up. I really can't see anything holding it back unless someone thought it was relying too much on ADB for its substance. However if anyone raised that (and I think it would've been brought up in ACR) I'm sure I could help find an extra source or two to fill it out. So why not...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thought of something - this is paying me back for McNamara, isn't it? I take a VC to FA, so you take a RAAFie to FA...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Perhaps... now, just to get back at Backslash Fowardslash for Bruce Kingsbury... ;-) I've just gone off and opened the nomination, so I guess all I can do is just wait and see how it goes. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, they've gone and moved Ten Years at the Top. It's now located at http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/unsworks:3230/SOURCE02?view=true Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

'Murphy Method'
Hi Ian. Joe has queried in the ACR for Otto Becher how does one wrap a piece of paper in a potato in response to the 'Murphy Method'. I presume what was meant is that they wrapped the paper around the potato, but I thought I would just ask you for conformation first. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes - replied there as well...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Yeah, I agree about the "literal-minded people"! ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate you taking time for the GA review of Charles A. May. Thanks! Strikehold (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War I
Hi Ian, in my comments on this article's peer review at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military history of Australia during World War I I suggested that there's too much coverage of the AFC. Do you think that this is correct? If so, do you think that the material in the article would be useful for starting a dedicated article on the AFC? Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily say there's way too much on the AFC per se but I agree that the emphasis the article places on some areas is perhaps not in proportion - for instance I probably would've given just a line to the Mesopotamian Half-Flight. If we use the Official History (not counting the 3 medical volumes) as a yardstick, there's about 10% AFC, 10% RAN and 10% home front there. In this article there's about 10% AFC, 5% RAN and 15% home front, so overall it's not too bad, but your point is taken re. a dedicated AFC article, and some of what's in the Military History of Australia During World War I might work better there. As I've progressed with the RAAF bios, I've been giving serious consideration to expanding the History of the RAAF article and to keep it to manageable size I think it'd make sense to do the AFC separately. Did you have a burning desire to create an AFC article yourself or would you be happy for me to do so? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the AFC and have relatively little interest in the topic (biplanes don't do much for me) so it's all yours! Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, to be fair it's been a bit like that for me too (my family connection with the Air Force is the monoplane era, WWII onwards) but I have to admit that tackling the McNamara and Cobby articles has engaged my enthusiasm for telling the history of the early days as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cobby
Well done. When can we expect WE Newton at ACR and FAC?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no rest for the wicked...! To be honest I thought I'd gone about as far as I wanted to (apart from adding the bit you supplied, which I haven't forgotten) but since it went GA I've found another reference or two apart from the Short Life bio so I guess I'll take it to the next stage(s) before too long - maybe next month, eh? Cheers and tks for your ready support, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leonard Siffleet

 * Great work with this Ian - it's a very good article which tells the story behind that famous photo. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
I see that you have nominated two articles for the WP:FOUR award. We are transitioning to a new method. Would you be able to verify two nominations from the list and move them to the record log as part of a policy where each nominator reviews a nomination for each nomination he has made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's fair. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Morotai_Mutiny problem

 * According to the talk page edit and the GAN edit, you were not responsible for the GAN nomination. Additionally, you did not edit the article once between the time of its nomination and its passing.  I can not validate this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to have nominated it yourself, do you? Oh well, whatever... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Goble

 * I am a little curious about the editorial history of this article. Did you start the article in a sandbox or userspace.  It seems to have been highly developed before it was created in main space.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a while for that one but the usual way I work is to develop something to B-Class level in Word (with an occasional preview in WP to check formatting) and then create the article. I've rarely used a sandbox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar, Ian, it was an unexpected delight. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad spelling
Thanks for this! Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Cleburne
It's been about a month and no work's been done on it - probably best to just fail it, I'd say. Wizardman 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, guess so. Already left a message on author's/nominator's talk page - shame, 'cos there's not that much to do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's 4 a.m....
...and I'm a little tired. Sorry for thinking " Ian " but typing " Joe " instead. :-) Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  09:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thought it might be past your bedtime! Anyway, you saved me going to the coord page and putting up a message for someone uninvolved to close Kesselring... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A college kid having a bedtime? Never. ;) Sorry about not getting around to reviewing it like I've done with 90% of the other requests since like February; I need a little break of not reviewing everything because, honestly, reference-formatting-checking gets rather tedious and annoying after awhile. :-/ — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  09:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Cleburne
Hello Ian, I noticed that you just failed this GA nominee. Looking at the review, I find that the issues you brought up are very minor, and I'm surprised that no one took the time to correct them. Even if I have little knowledge of the subject I believe I could fix those. Would you consider passing the article if I all the issues were adressed? decltype (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Decltype, I have no problem re-reviewing the article if renominated, once the points are addressed. It was a shame neither the nominator nor anyone else stepped forward to take care of them over the month or more it was open, but that's the way of it sometimes, and I already had another editor (see earlier) suggesting it was time to call a halt to it. Anyway, as I say, feel to go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have addressed the issues and renominated it. Unfortunately, I may not be able to effectively address other issues, since I do not have access to any of the sources used, but if your previous review still stands, I think the article is in decent shape. decltype (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ADF leadership template
Hi Ian! I can see an argument for including Chief of the Capability Development Group/Executive (or whatever it's called at the moment) in the "ADF leadership template". What are your thoughts on the matter? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DavidBowieEMI.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DavidBowieEMI.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DavidBowieMercury.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DavidBowieMercury.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Otto Becher FAC
Hi Ian. I was wondering if you would be able to anwser a question bought up in the above FAC? In regards to the 'Murphy Method', an editor has asked: "Who was Murphy and why was the method named for him? Did Becher have any role in its invention?". Naturally, I could not really answer of these questions, and was hoping you would be able to. The link is here. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, teenagers and Americans - ignorance is bliss! ;-)) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks for that Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Ian, I just saw your e-mail. Thank you very much, it really does mean a lot to me. If I ever feel like having a winge, at least I know I have another person to annoy with my problems. ;-) I really appreciate it. You seriously do have to be my favourite editor around. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's a veritable mutual admiration society then... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Thanks for the help on "Miss You". Mr Anonymous (to lazy to login) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.34.156 (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think I only corrected a typo but tks anyway and keep up the good work - I was the one who described "Far Away Eyes" as "light-hearted" but your substitution of "tongue-in-cheek" is better still... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal
nominated Panama Canal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern Era
Hi Ian,what's up, why do you keep removing the new addition to the modern era...non-consensual brain implants? This is a real lawsuit against RCMP Supreme Court of BC Nanaimo Registry SCBC S55166....This lawsuit is pending and will be before the supreme court in the next couple of months. if you have any questions email me at tikidibo@telus.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braincomputerguy (talk • contribs) 06:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you don't seem to be reading my edit summaries - your assertion is uncited and will continue to be reverted while it remains so; even then the detail of this addition would be way over the top. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)