User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2009

Cold War Task Force
I have added your name to the task force as a TF coordinator. Thanks for volunteering for this assignment. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

 * Tks Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidying
Just wanted to say thank for touching up the Dark class fast patrol boat article. Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime - keep up your good work...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Cole
Adrian Cole- 'Above the trenches' page 112 states 6 destroyed, 3 OOC, = 9 However in the supplement published in 1996 on page 18 adds an additional claim- a Rumpler destroyed on 14/8/18 shared with Lt CO Stone. Cheers Harryurz (talk)
 * Thanks mate. So would that bring his total to 10 as far as Above the Trenches is concerned? From my understanding the British counted shared victories as 1 for each participant, not a percentage as in WWII... Also, would you say the list given at The Aerodrome is correct, i.e. all 10 were in France with No. 2 Sqn AFC and none in Palestine? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If I'm right and this list in The Aerodrome is lifted from Above the Trenches or its supplement, could you let me know the book and the page no. it's on for citation? Many tks again, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indian Air Force
Can you look at the PR for this since you have done some FAs on RAAF politics and commanders. The article seems very unbalanced, in my opinion.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 14:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure mate, will have a look next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you made a few changes to this page. This was really helpful. Unfortunately, I wont be able to contribute at all for next week or two. We will really appreciate if you can help us make it a A-class article. Nosedown (talk) is doing a considerable copyedit and he might need some help. We have most of the facts and prose but still needs a little bit of editing to tie everything together. Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, I wasn't finished, just had to take a break for other stuff - should be able to do some more soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RAAF Air Power Development Centre
Hi Ian, have you seen that the Air Power Development Centre's website has been (recently?) greatly upgraded and now includes PDF versions of many of the books they've published? There's lots of stuff which would be very useful to RAAF history articles there now. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, a few there I've heard of but not seen before - tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Konig class
Hi, Ian. Thanks for reviewing and copyediting the article, it's much appreciated. It always amazes me how I can miss things like "fours" :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

H & A
Howdy! Yes, it has been a while. Thanks for the info. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Cole
No problem, thanks for your comment. Great article by the way – when I read the story in The Age, I thought if there's no Wikipedia article on this guy there should be! Of course there was! (I had a bit of trouble finding it due to the lack of disambiguation links from the Adrian Cole article about an author, but I added a link to the disambiguation page. --Canley (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I love about WP, me finding someone augmenting an article I've worked on, you finding an article about the subject of a news report that caught your eye. Tks again, and also for updating the dab page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clive Caldwell
Hi Ian, Do you own Kristen Alexander's book on Caldwell? I've started working on an article about the raid on Darwin on 2 May 1943 in which No. 1 Wing suffered heavy losses at User:Nick-D/Drafts7 (all contributions welcome!), and it looks like a useful source. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't own it but I'm sure the Mitchell would have a copy so when you're ready for some more detail on that episode (sorry, don't have time to check your draft right now and see where you're at) let me know and I'll go and add some - might have a chance in the next few days, generally not based in town in the latter half of the week... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I can borrow the book from a few different libraries - I was just checking to see if you had a copy before I travelled to see if the book would be of use. Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no trouble for me to check that at the Mitchell in the next day or two if you can wait till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you're just looking for a preview, I know it's on GoogleBooks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. The entire chapter on the raid is there, and it looks very similar to the Sabretache article. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WWI VCs
Hi there Ian, thanks for the comments at the FLC. I have made some edits to the lead now and commented on the FLC. Is my edit what you had in mind? Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much what I had in mind, ta... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Heroes"
I am trying to establish more about the French version of this song. I came across this on YouTube, which I note you haven't included in your list of "other versions". I note also that the French version was released in Australia with somne of the other language versions (I assume it wasn't the hybrid?), but do you know if the single was released in France in 1979 with only this track and entitled "Heroes" not "Héros", like the album cover on YouTube would seem to indicate?

I'm also trying to establish the origins of another (allegedly) Bowie song "David Bowie's Revolutionary Song". Any thoughts?

Any info you can provide would be appreciated.

 ♫ Яєd   xx   ♪  ♫ ♪  ♫  ♪ Talk 11:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. According to my copy of Carr & Murray's Bowie: An Illustrated Record, the French version of "Heroes" ("Héros") was released as a single on its own (catalogue number PB.9187), like the German version ("Helden", PB.9188), and of course the English version.  The implication was that all were recorded in 1977.  I've never seen that cover on YouTube but I wouldn't necessarily trust that 1979 date just because it's on YouTube. As to "Revolutionary Song", you can read pretty well all I know about it in Schöner Gigolo, armer Gigolo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the info Ian!  ♫  Яєd   xx   ♪  ♫ ♪  ♫  ♪ Talk 09:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award for Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)

 * Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

25 DYK award

 * Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1
Have you seen this? Is it feasible?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While it seems well-structured, on principle the major contributor(s) should be consulted before FAC at the very least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:ACR closure
Indeed, I wasn't aware of the new ACR regulations concerning minimum/maximum duration. However, I believe we can make an exception this time considering that it had 5 supports as well. Anyway, thanks for the notice! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

my confusion
Ian, hi again and thanks for fixing the Bowie reference. I could not work out what was wrong with it (a big red "no tag" text was showing in the ref list for No. 31). I tried and tried; I copied the ref text from a previous version. Still no luck. The only thing that would work was the removal of the first bit. I'm still unsure what the function of that first part is; I'm not good on the mechanics of reference syntax. Tony  (talk)  01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no prob, but I didn't actually fix the prob that showed up in the Notes section (have now). The bit must be identical for each instance of its use.  The original, which included the actual author/year/page reference, had been broken by an extra space being added between "p." and the page numbers.  Of course we have a mix of displayed page references in the form "p. 99" and "p.99" anyway, but with the ref name tag, it's not important if there's a space or not so long as each instance matches&mdash;it's an internal key to match identical  citations, not for display. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dizzy from the barrage
Saw this and couldn't help but laugh. See User:The_ed17/Sandbox2 for further explanation. -MBK004 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, looks like the barrage will only get heavier...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

An Award!

 * Thanks for thinking of that Tom - appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Contest update
Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Butting in???
If you are offering me useful tips, you most definitely are not "butting in". Sometimes I even put out requests for help, with no response.

Now if I only knew a reason why I have to duplicate cites.... Take a look at Pier Ruggero Piccio, for example. I found the accounts of the various aspects of his life in large chunks within the sources. For instance, the entire story of his first marriage and domestic disputes came from one news story. I drew the facts from it, but rearranged them extensively. Anyone checking the source of the cites at the end of the paragraph in that story would be maddened at returning to the same article and re-reading it over and over, plucking out facts like raisins from rice pudding.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) What can I say?


 * I know this, like a number of style considerations at Wikipedia, doesn't satisfy everyone, but it seems to work for most. I started off with dup cites as well but eventually saw that the review process demanded adherance to certain style conventions. It does make the list of footnotes shorter overall, and the a/b/c/etc allows you to link back and forth between the footnotes and the relevant points of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the concept of dupe cites, just with the enactment of them. (Confession: I am a non-techie.) However, the idea that extra cites have to be copied in just to satisfy an arbitrary standard dreamed up by Assessment galls me. I have called to their attention that their requirement of one cite per para is contradictory to the citation section policy.

Guess I will just have to write off assessments as irrelevant.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * George, not sure but we may be at cross-purposes on 'dup cites' so will just make sure using the Early Life section from your own example, Pier Ruggero Piccio, which is so close to B-Class it's not funny - I've left the existing citations (e.g. "[3]") and added where you could/should have others according to MilHist convention if nothing else:


 * Pier Ruggero Piccio was born in Rome on 27 September 1880, to Giacomo Piccio and Caterina Locatelli.[3] He attended the Military School of Modena, enrolling on October 29, 1898. He graduated on September 8, 1900, as a sottotenente (second lieutenant) assigned to the 43rd Infantry Regiment.[I assume all after [3] in this para is sourced from citation [2] which is at end of next para, but be nice to have a citation here at the end of this para]


 * In 1903, he was seconded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From November of that year until February, 1907, he was engaged in a mission to Kalambari, Africa, which is located in what is presently the nation of Chad. Upon his return to Italy, he spent from March, 1908 to July 1909 assigned to the 2nd Joint Company of Crete.[2]


 * From November 14, 1911 through December 2, 1912, he served in the Italo-Turkish War; this war is also sometimes called the Libyan War because Libya became an Italian protectorate as a result of the conflict. This war was notable for the first use of aircraft in battle, although the pioneer events of aerial reconnaissance and bombing occurred just before Piccio's arrival. Piccio's duty station was with an artillery unit belonging to the 37th Infantry. He was decorated with the Bronze Medal of Military Valor during this service.[Definitely need a citation for this para, best right here]


 * On March 31, 1913, Piccio was transferred to the 19th Infantry at the rank of captain. In July, 1913, he began pilot training. Upon qualifying as a pilot on Nieuport Monoplanes in October, he was assigned to the 5to Squadrone.[Definitely need a citation for this para, best right here - but if this and previous para is all same source, you could combine the paras and just have one citation at the end of it - this is Sturmvogel's point, I think]

"Citations are placed logically; i.e. at every change of the source of information. This is in line with my interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. Don't ask me to explain how that fits with assessors demands for a citation per paragraph to get beyond Start Class. I don't understand it either.

More than one citation in same spot means I found the information in more than one source."

Sturmvogel wants to codify the contradiction rather than deal with it. He also commits the fallacies of changing the subject and launching a subtle ad hominem attack upon me. Given the fact that no one else cares to address the issue, I find it tempting to join the 90% of editors who give no citations whatsoever in their articles. In fact, I have recently; I have turned to creating Stubs just to avoid being hassled.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wackett book
Hi Ian, I saw a copy of the book Shaft of the spear : evolution of the RAAF technical services to the end of the Second World War in the AWM bookshop today. Not surprisingly given its topic, the index had a very large number of entries for E.C. Wackett so it may be worth looking into. The book is self-published but has an introduction by Angus Houston, so I think that it counts as a reliable source (for what it's worth, it looked reliable!). I didn't buy a copy I'm afraid though as it was about $40. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, don't blame you, bit steep for such a specialised subject...! Was hoping it might be in the State or Mitchell Libraries but no such luck.  Probably is reliable given the authors are ex-Technical Branch officers (one at least an Air Commodore) but may have to pass on it for a while...  I'm pretty happy with the level of detail in the Ellis Wackett article now but will keep my eye out for this one - tks for letting me know, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest scoring change
I've realized there may be an issue with the scoring system, and I have a solution, which I've explained here. Feedback is requested. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

next step on Detzner?
Ian, thanks for your review on Hermann Detzner. What do I need to do next, to move this along? Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've done everything you need/can for now - with three supports (albeit one qualified) and all comments acknowledged, it's up to a MilHist Coordinator to come along and close it as promoted once they deem fit (A-Class Reviews generally require minimum three supports before promotion, but can remain open for a maximum 28 days). Although I'm a Coordinator, I won't close as I've reviewed/supported it.  Anyway, I'd expect some action in next few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * sounds good. After that, I'll go for the FAC hoops.  R  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ian, Hermann Detzner is not on the candidates list at Featured Articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Woody added it to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and transcluded your nom page to WikiProject Military history/Review‎ very soon after you nominated, Ruth. I'll announce it on a couple of the MilHist talk pages as usual, when I get a chance today, if no-one else gets to that first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to say it is "NOW" on the candidates for FA. I did it manually, not knowing it was automatic....:)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, you meant "now" instead of "not", eh? Just a  good old-fashioned typo then!  That said, we don't have a bot that adds things to MilHist lists, it is actually done manually by MilHist coordinators or experienced editors.  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 11 September 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)

Thanks!
Cheers for reverting vandalism on my talkpage mate! --Eurocopter (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A pause for self-evaluation
I have not said I am leaving Wikipedia. I have decided on a sabbatical while I contemplate my future (or lack of it) with Wikipedia.

It's sobering to realize that after a year writing for Wikipedia I am a drag on the project because of my lack of editing skills. Writing is easy; I can just sit down and stitch together an article just as I used to collate intelligence reports. I can crank out articles that those with more information can develop into a Featured or Class A article. That's fine with me. I'm happy filling in the gaps in the bios of the World War I fighter aces. However, I am beginning to dredge the bottom of the information barrel; I can foresee a coming future of producing mostly Stubs on the lower-scoring aces. So my given field seems to be mined out.

And style? I can mimic any style, if need be. I had hoped Wikipedia would be written in a more engaging style than print encyclopedias....still, if you want me to mimic a Wikipedia style, I can do it.

However, Wiki editing, for whatever reason, is tough for me. This is where I fall down. After a year, I am still struggling to learn such basics as inserting graphics and converting bare URLs into something more acceptable. I have shuffled this self-knowledge aside as I have rushed to write articles.

It has become apparent to me that I must learn Wiki editing and cease to burden others with cleaning up after me. My sabbatical is a thinking time for me to discover whether I can, or will learn to, master Wiki editing. If I can't, then my contributions are at an end. It would be time to pass the torch.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award for John Lerew

 * Thanks, Tony! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Angliaman re your help Ian
I see you are in Sydney where many of my relatives were, jusy a few now, Blue Mts, and Sydney Harbour etc. Thanks for your help, there is a lot to learn to navigate the site. I am trying to update my page, it's learning how to do it, takes time. I think in a few weeks will be more familiar with routine. I did go back and do summaries last night on two or three edits, but after I write the summaries, and clicked, save, I could not see them afterwards, and did not understand why, a surely they should be viewable, not to the public but to people here. David B

Angliaman (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of Australian Task Force content, I’ll be continuing to encourage greater emphasis on quality Royal Australian Navy biographies, an area which has lagged behind RAAF and Australian Army biographies because, unlike those cases, no-one has picked it up as their area of focus. Related to this, I’ll be working towards getting a biography of every Australian service chief to at least B-Class standard, which I think would be an achievement. Civil but stimulating collaboration with the other people in this project gives me enjoyment. What irritates me – and of course it’s a Wikipedia-wide thing – is the continuing indulgence of IP editors. I’ve known only one or two who are serious contributors, and though of course there are bad eggs among editors with user names, that’s a small minority in comparison.  Making editors take a name does not IMO make WP any less of an encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'. For the road ahead with the new team of MilHist coordinators, I’m not certain of the best solution to concerns in the make-up of Task Forces but no doubt we'll invest more time to discuss and rationalise as necessary. Assigning roles within MilHist for coordinators rather than everyone just 'doing their bit/best' is also worth investigating, perhaps on a roster basis to spread the load and the less exciting tasks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Majestic Titan and India
Hi Ian, Since Operation Majestic Titan is on, I was wondering if it is possible to get some article on the Battleships built in India before the British Raj. I believe that if you know someone with a good source on Kanhoji Angre vs East India company or Saamoothiri vs Portuguese article can be written. --Vinay84 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply on Roger's talk page: User_talk:Roger_Davies. One would think people would come to those listed in the blurb about the op to ask questions? -MBK004 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Waddy
Some coincidence indeed, ven more so that I happened to spot both through my watchlist. Any mileage in a dual dyk nom, if your guy is sufficiently far enough along? David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, I've got all my sources lined up but still have most of the writing to complete so while it might scrape in by end of month it's certainly not as advanced as the other one appears to be. BTW, there are many more refs/links in WP already to 'my' Waddy but as he seems to have been fairly well known by his full name I was happy to go with that - tks for pointing it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think John Waddy will end up as a dab page, neither seems to be able to claim obvious pre-eminence. We could always see if Steve is prepared to hold off putting his guy live until you're in a position to do yours, bu tit's probably not really worth it. Just be quite fun to continue the coincidence.  David Underdown (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, it doesn't just stop there... John Lloyd Waddy's son Lloyd is a QC, judge, and co-founder of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, making him pretty worthy of an article himself - so we could end up with a John Waddy article, a John Lloyd Waddy article, and a Lloyd Waddy article, to create some neat symmetry (or near-total confusion)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Amusingly there was another Waddy at Arnhem who was killed in the battle and was actually a distant relative of the John Waddy I'm writing about!  I'd be happy to hold of uploading if you reckon you can have your Waddy done by the end of the month or thereabouts.  Definately be a fun DYK, although I wouldn't know how to word it! Ranger Steve (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incestuous world, ain't it?! Well, Steve, I'll do my best on 'my' Waddy article as it'd be my only entry in this month's MilHist writing contest, where I like to at least keep up appearances...  As to wording, my first thought'd be simply something along the lines of ...during World War II, John Waddy of the RAAF became one of  Australia's top-scoring aces, while John Waddy of the British Army ? I'd love to get bits in about their notable post-war careers as well, but I doubt even a two-article entry would gain us that much grace over the usual 200-character hook limit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom - right back at ya! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops :) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I noticed; I'm just not in the habit of editing other people's posts :) At any rate, its not the typing that was important, it was the gift. Your heart was int he right place, and that's what matters most, is it not? ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate - yes, definitely the heart, just not the eyes or the brain at that particular moment...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

HELPPPPPPP
I tried to fix a comma problem in your article, while I did the GA review, and I now have botched up the reference for footnote 6. I've tried undoing what I did, but that doesn't seem to help. !!! Nice article, btw. It's about to pass. :) Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All good now, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

At your leisure
Take your time Ian. It can't be that often that 2 wikiers go and write articles about people with the same name at the same time. It'll be a fun DYK (I hope) so I'm happy to wait until you're done. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks Steve, but I'm just putting the finishing touches on it and will put it in mainspace sometime today, so pls feel free to do the same with yours. Have you got your portion of the hook ready per suggestion above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll upload mine shortly then, and knock together a disambig page. For the hook, I guess it'll be;
 * ...during World War II, John Waddy of the RAAF became one of Australia's top-scoring aces, while John Waddy of the Parachute Regiment was captured at the Battle of Arnhem?
 * Or;
 * ... that World War II RAAF ace John Waddy later became a politician, and parachutist John Waddy went on to command the SAS?


 * I'm guessing the politician part is correct, although you might want to clarify it. Like you I'd prefer to get something in about their later careers, and this was the shortest way I could do it. But we might get special consideration for a 2 article hook anyway.  Ranger Steve (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * ... that RAAF fighter ace John Waddy later became a Minister of the Crown, while British Army parachutist John Waddy went on to command the SAS?


 * that RAAF fighter ace John Waddy later became a Minister of the Crown, while British Army paratrooper John Waddy went on to command the SAS?
 * Minor tweak to paratrooper. Looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, paratrooper's much better - let's go for it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just making some minor tweaks on my userpage, will upload in a sec and finish them off on the actual page. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want to put the DYK in while I tweak my page? If you do can you mention User:Skinny87 for assisting? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Yours looks good - but no public domain pics of him around, huh? I think there's precedent for two pics in double noms; I won't include a pic of 'my' Waddy unless you discover one of 'yours'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Not sure about pics - I think some of the ones I've seen are, but I can't be certain.  But if you're interested there's another pic of your Waddy here.  Good article btw! Ranger Steve (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done the nom for you - felt I deserved a bit of credit since I spotted the coincidence in the first place! David Underdown (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, indeed you do - no complaint from me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor me! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Meetup Time in Sydney :-)
Hi all,

It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

re: ACR
Crap, I just can't get used with this new regulation and always forgot to check the nomination date. I'll try to keep in mind this next time. Anyway, thanks for your notice! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Wackett
Well done on overcoming all of that tricky image adversity, and achieving Featured Article status on Ellis Wackett! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, and also for your part in the discussion. Naturally I see the image guys' point, it only seems like things are made up as they go along because these supposedly long-standing rules suddenly pop out of the woodwork. That said, I think we may as well include as a matter of course the following in addition to the PD-Australia template for every new Commons image from the AWM which declares itself "out of copyright - public domain", to negate any controversy; will mention this at the Australian TF page:


 * Per the link above to the Australian government site where the image was found, the Australian government considers this to be public domain.


 * Good idea. I guess it just depends on the image reviewer, and how well they "probe"; still bloody annoying sometimes though, lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just remembered then that I got advice from an image reviewer before the FAC of Otto Becher as I thought something might come up, and he told me to place a Fair Use Rational on the image. However, the above tag is probably more appropiate, so I'll go swap them now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all want to be consistent, the above PD notice makes more sense for Becher. With the Ellis Wackett portrait, that's different because it didn't come from AWM and so has no "out of copyright - public domain" legend.  On the other hand, fair use is very strict too and the fact we have some Wackett pictures that are PD - even though they're not good portraits - may result in objections to a fair use rationale as well.  Well, we'll see... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Lloyd Waddy

 * Great work on this article Ian! I thought about starting it when I expanded the 80 Sqn article, but am glad that I didn't as it wouldn't have been a patch on what you've written. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most kind, mate - like I said before you left, this was on my list, but you can certainly take credit for inspiring me to get moving on it after I saw your fine 80SQN article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

citations and such
Ian, would you give me some advice on the comments left by Eurocopter on Cologne War article. It's in the A class review pile, and he has asked for additional 43 citations !!!! I think the article is overcited as it is, but he wants more, plus he wants me to do them in the other format (separate notes from citations, which I won't do, categorically. It is just too confusing, and I prefer discursive footnotes). He wants nearly every sentence cited and that seems like overkill to me. He also has some problems with prose, but he won't say what they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the review, Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Bell (aviator)
Enjoyed the read. Very nice article. -- Samir 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is yet more great work Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Award for your work on Ellis Wackett

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*Boos Ian off the stage*
Really? Pathetic attempt at a joke. :PP — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, jealousy's a curse... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, that is so terribly lame, yet somehow largely amusing and entertaining. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Roberts Dunstan
Just a thanks for help tidying up the Roberts Dunstan article I created. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to see it, I hadn't heard of the guy before that, so thank you... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind assessment on Ellsworth P. Bertholf and the edits afterward. As a relatively new editor, the little flaws in an article are not always apparent. Although Bertholf is not my first attempt at getting an article to B class; I do believe it has been my best so far. Going back and looking at my earier attempts, I see some room for improvement and I will be doing some editing on those articles. I also plan to add to the lede of the Bertholf article as you suggested. Again, thanks, and CHEERS! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - a couple of paragraphs would do the trick, summarising the main points of his career/achievements. Once that's done, you could certainly consider going for GA, at least, IMO. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice
Hi Ian. I've nominated George III of the United Kingdom for a FA review, here. Not that it's not in good shape. I just wanted to officially move it through the process as it's a five year old FA. Any comments welcome. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of Henry Petre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sasata (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actioned. Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

comments on A review for Cologne War
Ian, have your comments/issues/problems been met? Will you support this article, or are there still additional issues? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, was waiting for comments from other reviewers to be resolved before taking another look - replied at review page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AHC
Posted a support  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards time!

 * Many tks Trev! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 7 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) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA
John Lloyd Waddy, Warfare or Politics? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, the very question...! Of all the people I've dealt with who straddle both military and political spheres, Waddy is easily the toughest to put into one main camp. I'd say his achievements as a fighter pilot are rather more notable than those as politician but then I'm probably biased like that; he'd qualify as notable in WP terms for his political office alone as well. In terms of simple tenure, those two careers are exactly even, 1940-54 in the military (albeit not full-time for all of it) and 1962-76 as a pollie, so that doesn't help much either. Considering possible precedents in FA where someone has notability for two distinct careers, the only one that comes to mind is Wesley Clark, and he's classified under politics.  On the other hand, would he have gotten a foot into that political notability without the military career?  Might ask one or two others their thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope :) Pick one.  Now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Is this your way of telling me you're about to close and promote? Well, if so, I can hardly argue... I'd go with Warfare - he was one of the top Australian aces of WWII, but it's not like he was a State Premier or a Federal Treasurer or what not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Barring 10 opposes in the next 10 minutes! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * good choice, Ian. I found the material on his fighter career more interesting than his politics too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)  And congratulations!
 * Many tks Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the Duke of Wellington when you need him? Anyhow, put Waddy down as a flyer. He would have liked that. You should do John Gorton next... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, another RAAFie, yes, but the weight of politics there might take me too far into the Dark Side... What next, Whitlam?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloodie zoomies and Liberal Politicians, hearty congratulations on the FA! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest putting him under warfare; it seems reasonable to assume that his military achievements were highly important in gaining a safe Liberal Party seat and his political career, while solid, wasn't as stellar as his military career. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, we all seem to be of one mind in this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Military career of Gough Whitlam would be a good topic for an article; it seems like he had an interesting war. I recently read a history of the Australian War Memorial and he shocked the AWM by seriously suggesting after his election that they publish a book of the (mainly unprintable) songs sung in RAAF officers messes! Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New Stan Dallas victory list
I have just received, via interlibrary loan, Australian Hawk Over the Western Front. Appendix E in it lists 48 victories for Dallas. More interestingly, it does not entirely coincide with the aerodrome's listing at http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/australi/dallas.php. Combining the two will produce a victory list somewhere in the 50s, or perhaps in the low 60s. This will be revolutionary! It would not only make him the top scoring Australian ace of World War I, but also move him well towards the top of the list for all sides in the war.

I am in the process of collating the aerodrome and Hawk lists. I am thinking that perhaps we should append a final list to the Dallas article.

I am soliciting your thoughts on the situation.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That certainly puts the cat amongst the pigeons! I'll see if one of the libraries in town has a copy of Australian Hawk so I can compare to Newton's Australian Air Aces.  You'll recall that Newton lists 32 undisputed claims (similar to what's in The Aerodrome and Shores) as well as another 11 that were reported by "some sources", which would give him 43.  At this stage I think we're still likely to have to report 32 as the most commonly listed undisputed score, mention 39 as a regularly reported figure, and also refer to lists which give him even higher scores, like the one you've just found. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The list I am referring to seems about as detailed as the aerodrome list, and dates from 2006. Thus it seems equally reliable, and somewhat newer, as the aerodrome lists are dated 1997. I should not be surprised if the Shore list and the aerodrome list coincide, as the aerodrome is run by World War I aviation historians who also publish in print. Shore may be one of them. Incidentally, Above the Trenches is listed as one of the sources for the Hawk list.

As I have been insisting on a victory-by-victory list as the basis for placement, it seems only cricket that I should honor a compilation that shows a higher figure than 32. I am going to put together a cut-and-paste one this evening, using scissors and paper, and will advise you of the result. If it results in a higher total than 43, then I believe we have reliable sourcing for that higher total.

Could you please set me up a User Page with a tabular listing on it, so that I can share my results? I would suggest something similar to the present lists, except the headings should be "No.", "Date/time", "Aircraft", "Foe", "Result", "Location", "Notes". I had a try at adapting the present list, but failed miserably.

I am not familiar with Newton and Shores, but will try to acquire them through interlibrary loan.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well since I've got access to Newton you could leave posting that list to me, you concentrate on Australian Hawk (once I set up a table) and perhaps you could buzz Harryurz, who I believe has Shores, and he could just point out any differences between Shores and The Aerodrome (I wouldn't be surprised if they're identical). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have collated the victories listed in Appendix E of Hawk with the victory list of the aerodrome. I spent last night reading Hawk. I methodically waded through the entirety of Hawk. By the time I had straightened out glitches in dates and other minor discrepancies, I had identified 41 certain victories by Dallas. There were 8 additional listings, which I hesitated to add to the list for various reasons. These are:

Line item 1: Unconfirmed, and regarded as such by Dallas himself.

Line item 10: RNAS Summary (of air activities) says unverified.

Line items 14 & 15: Taken from Dallas's logbook; unconfirmed.

Line item 43: No one in squadron claimed this victory. Also, there is no victory listed on this day, 19 May 1918, though there is a contradictory victory for the day prior. This might mean two victories, one victory, or none on these two days. (Aren't headaches the funnest thing?)

Line items 45 and 46: Two Fokker Dr.1s listed in Hawk list, but author only mentions one. No details of aircraft flown or whether it (they) were OOC, destroyed, or whatever. However, 3 sources are cited.

Line item 47: SE5a D3511 flown, Rumpler 2-seater victim, no loss detail. Same 3 sources cited.

Interestingly enough, the author ends Hawk by insisting that Dallas's immutable fixed score is 39 victories.

So, bring on the table. I only have the loan of Hawk until the 22nd.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, we definitely have to draw attention to the fact that 39 is a commonly attributed score - almost everyone says it, even when their lists of claims contradict it... ;-) Okay, table is at User:Georgejdorner/Stan Dallas claims. I've filled in one row as an example, and left the next blank except for number. For each add'l row you just need to copy everything from | align="center"| to the next |–, updating the number and filling in the details (there may be smarter ways of doing this but I'm no expert either...!) If you complete this table with the Australian Hawk list, I'll do the same with Newton's list in another similarly formatted table. BTW, I haven't put the link to this new page in your user space, will leave that to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after much pushing, pulling, prodding, and massaging of data (lol), I have a list of 41 confirmed victories, plus 12 that are currently classified unconfirmed. I mean, Hawk 's author has some great data, but never does confide how he handles it, nor can I detect a consistent approach. In turn, I have tried to follow the British system of confirming victory: pilot log entry and/or combat report did not count, unless verified by squadron or higher levels of command. My system of confirmation depended on:


 * Squadron Record Book verification, and/or


 * RNAS or RAF Communique verification, and/or


 * Reliable secondary source verification; i.e. Hawk and/or Aerodrome

You will see sources quoted in Hawk in Notes as basis for unconfirmed victory listings; I hope to check those to either keep each victory unconfirmed, delete it as a false/mistaken report, or move it to confirmed.

I have left code to copy at the bottom of the list, so you can add any additions from Newton. As for Shores Above the Trenches, Adrian Hellwig did use it in compiling the victory list in Hawk, so I don't suppose Harryuz need bother checking it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks George. I'll add Netwon's data to the table as soon as I get a minute. I notice you're adding some info from Hawk to the Dallas article itself. That's great, I was planning to do the same with material from Newton, ADB and anything else I find as I think this has the potential to go to at least A-Class in MilHist/Aviation.  By all means complete your pass with Hawk's data and I'll do the same for Newton and other sources I have.  While doing this I could make the copyedit to get it past the style requirements, then we could put it up as a joint A-Class nomination with credit to both of us - what say you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * George, I was hoping we could discuss the formatting of any list before adding it to the actual Dallas article, though I realise you've probably been waiting on me. I don't think the use of footnotes as well as the Notes column works that well, it's a bit confusing. I was planning to add the Newton info after we came to an agreement on the table style so if you could engage in dialogue with me on that, it'd be great.  Also I don't think we should rely on The Aerodrome as we do with the books, we should just perhaps include it as a external link. You've done a phenomenal job with the info in the table, I just think we need to present it well to ensure it's accessible and will pass scrutiny of potential reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian,

I am sorry if I seem impatient, but I have Hawk for a limited time through interlibrary loan. Its a case of use it before I lose it. Because you had set up the original table, I never thought we had to agree on a table format. My apologies if I have come off as peremptory about that. Certainly, if you see a change that will make a cleaner, more intelligible table, go for it.

I transferred over the table I had compiled, with the idea that as you added anything to my User page table, I would transfer new info over. I cited everything, because there is probably nothing more controversial and contentious than an ace's victory total. I then eliminated the Notes column, as it would be unintelligible to the general user. Heck, it probably doesn't make entire sense to you. So I removed my personal notes from the new table.

It would be kind of you to list me as co-creator if you can push it through to A-Class. However, I think that Abraham, B.S. (talk) should share honors also.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I understand. Actually it wasn't so much the table format (which I based on your list of suggested fields) as how we cited the claims - removing the Notes column takes care of the main thing that looked confusing, so tks for that, you were way ahead of me. Then again, the table might look more aesthetically pleasing with fewer of the other columns and the citations placed the right, e.g. as in the Hans-Joachim Marseille, so was thinking I might combine the Foe, Result and Location columns into one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian, old cobber (hope you don't mind a ruddy American borrowing Aussie slang),

Hans-Joachim Marseille not only looks better, but using its device of mini-explanations could head off contention in the case of Dallas. I'll get right to it, on my Users page. It would also afford an opportunity to move the cites from their present uglifying location, by shifting them to the end of the Notes.

As a precaution, I will preserve the present rough draft table at the bottom of the Users page while working on the latest iteration at the top.

I have to return 'Hawk' on the 22nd. Other than the victory claims, it seems to have little else to contribute to the Dallas life story.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strike me lucky, George, you can can use our lingo any time you like! Actually I didn't mean you had to do all the work on a revamped table, I was going to just combine what you had in Foe, Result and Location into one statement like "Sent Albatros out of control near Lille" or some such. I realise that by using Hawk you're able to put a little bit more detail of each kill in, I'm just not sure about me adding the citations where Newton applies because his are more basic, just foe, location and result. Do you want to hang five till I go through what you have so far with Newton's input so we can be sure how the finished item will look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian, old cobber,

You supply what you can, and we'll make it work. I have been using Abraham's form of cite, giving the book and page number; I take it you can do the same. I also intend to write an explanation of why Dallas's victory record is so hard to trace and compile, as a companion piece to the new Victory List. Some of what I am listing has no more detail than what you are telling me Newton has, and some of them (such as #32 on 19 March 1918) have less. And as long as the revised Victory List hangs on my User Page, it is pretty much out of public view. Then, too, Wikipedia is all about editability.

No drama, mate. However, I have to return 'Hawk' in four days.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian, good fellow,

I added the times to such victories as I could in the interests of veracity. I really don't think they gunk up the appearance too much, but then I have a tin eye for graphics. As for the Newton information, I see few serious discrepancies to be worked out. Let's run down the discrepancies noted, with the unresolved ones bulleted:

23 April 1916: I changed foe to "Aviatik C" as you noted. It was operational at the time, and Newton doesn't really disagree with my findings.


 * 21 May 1916: "Out of control" versus "destroyed". Dallas's logbook notes: "I shot one fine fat fellow out of the sky he fell all of a smoke ball and was seen by a French officer." In a letter home, he wrote: "The last one I engaged I brought down on fire..." I left this listing unchanged, but if you can make a cogent case for OOC, OOC it shall become.

1 July 1916: The two descriptions of the foe being non-contradictory, I have merged them.

9 July 1916: The German pilot was seen to be thrown partially out his seat with both arms flung in the air by his plane stalling; the plane then fell vertically. However, its impact was not seen. Hawk says destroyed; aerodrome and Newton say out of control. I'll go with your choice in the matter.


 * Update: While working on the Dallas section called Service History, I found a second dogfight on this day that seems to better fit Newton. I have listed it as "Inconclusive", though it could be reclassified OOC. Likewise, if it is a confirmed victory in Newton, it could be such on this table. Of course, in that case, you will have to renumber victories all the way down the table.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

30 September 1916: No real discrepancy. Germans called their fighters D-types. I have used Newton as a better descriptor.

8 April 1917: Dallas's Combat Report stated: "Two-seater biplane, apparently an Albatros...", so he didn't know either. Once again, your call.


 * 30 April 1917: The Albatros D.III has a bullet nose; a Nieuport has a stubby one. They don't look much alike. I would go with Dallas's "German Nieuport" description myself, but I have left the listing unchanged pending further investigation.

22 July 1917: The Aviatik was so obsolescent, it was unlikely to still be in front line service. I have adopted "Albastros C" and deleted aerodrome reference because it specifies "Aviatik".

6 December 1917: Hawk doesn't justify "Destroyed"; "Out of control" substituted.

11 March 1918: "Rumpler C" seems correct, because "Aviatik" obselete. However, Newton has wrong date. This victory, and the balloon shot down the next day, are definitely on different days because the Communique doesn't mention the balloon.


 * 8 May 1918: Newton listing is different enough it might be a different dogfight and different victim. However, the Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.III do somewhat resemble one another. I made no changes in this listing, pending our further investigation.

18 May 1918: Hawk does quote a squadron history saying, "The Hun fell in flames in Lille." I changed to "Destroyed".

George, looks to me like you're in a race to get as much as you can from Hawk into the Dallas article as you can before returning it - I've looked and don't have a copy in local libraries but another source I have (Aces Falling) talks about his 40Sqn nickname ('The Admiral'), plus an exploit involving dropping boots to the Germans to mock them, as well as the reaction to his death from comrades, so I can add those - suggest you don't worry about them from Hawk even if they're in there, but concentrate on other elements. With what we have now, plus text I can add from Newton, ADB, and Aces Falling, it should be pretty comprehensive. What would be great for you to get from Hawk while you have it is anything the author mentions on the difficulty or controversy over the number of his claims. Believe you said you were thinking of penning something on that but if it's to go in the article itself it'd need to be cited like anything else, otherwise it would probably have to go on the Talk page. Finally, I still reckon no matter what Hawk says we need to be careful about saying point blank that Dallas' score was 50 or 60 since that doesn't gel with established authors like Shores, Franks, etc. I think we need to say that the most common totals given are 32 and 39, then mention Hawk giving the more extensive list. I'd still like to have Harry verify that the Aerodrome list is lifted straight from Shores' Above the Trenches, since the latter is such an important source and be good to cite it like that. Anyway, I'll try to write a new intro that covers all this soon, and you see what you think of it, before I tackle any of the main body. You continue to do a grand job, sorry I'm running a bit behind in my contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Say, cobber, don't be down on yourself about your contributions. I have the advantages of being a bachelor, of no longer punching a time clock, and of being a professional writer. Fluency is not an issue with me; neither is research. I have written B Class articles in a single day. Plus, I am swept up in Dallas's life. It inspires me. At any rate, your most valuable contribution has been, and will be, my weak point, which is Wiki-editing. The consolidated victory list is the backbone of this article. You not only set it up; you came up with the crucial improvement when you tipped me off to Marseille's list.

Now when it comes to victory totals, I think we are going to look foolish quoting superseded references that state 32 or 39 victories, when our own tabulation shows and justifies more than that. Hawk lists 48 confirmed, and is a 2006 text. We are not going whole hog to match that, because I cannot find Hellwig's method of verification. However, I have used his information and that of aerodrome to recreate the RNAS/RAF verification methods of the era to the best of my ability, using my decade's experience in military aerial intelligence. If you scroll up and read again, you will see how few confirmed claims are still unsettled. If you can help me sort out those few, I think we can wrap this list up. Then, I firmly believe we will have the best tabulation of Dallas's victories to date. And if we have that, then I think we should make it clear that we synthesized earlier historians. Once we make that clear, I think we should stand by our own list.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year, George... I notice you've found yet another source for our friend - well done! I haven't forgotten the plan for me to give it the GA/A/FA-style 'treatment', with a view to co-nominating at those levels, just been getting a few other articles out of my system first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy 2010, cobber...it isn't 0102 down under, is it?

I am still awaiting some more interlibrary loans concerning Stan Dallas. One little thing that could be done would be a redirect page for the actual name 'Stan Dallas', so anyone looking him up under that name goes straight to the article.

As for the rest...I did leave you with the dirty end of the stick, cleaning up all those citations, though LilHelpa has made a first stab at it. I also stole your tale about the dropped footwear, if only because I found a source that insisted he dropped slippers and called them boots.

If you could find something about his kid brother, who died while Dallas was in France, it would add a poignant touch to the tale. Can't even an encyclopedia be poignant?

Did you ever rake through the victory list items I enumerated above?

And whenever you get to it will be fine with me. However, if you are looking for articles to promote, also look at Albert Ball.

Cheers!

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How sad ...
... that we're both still sitting at computers in the wee-small-hours of Sunday morning. Anybody would think we had nothing better to do on a Saturday night! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, and here I was hoping that MAE (Mutually Assured Embassassment) would prevent someone drawing attention to the fact... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RAAF Squadrons
Hi Ian, if you're looking for some easy points for the various contests going at the moment, I'm in the process of (slowly) developing the articles on all the RAAF's flying squadrons up to B class standard. Some of them could be brought up to scratch easily by adding citations (No. 462 Squadron RAAF, for example) and others can be expanded from a stub (eg, No. 467 Squadron RAAF). I'm tracking progress at User:Nick-D/RAAF sqns and all help would, of course, be very welcome. It's also an interesting way to view the RAAF from the bottom up. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, tks mate. There's a few wings that I've red-marked as well - I might try getting a couple of them under my belt, just a pity no-one ever writes 'history of wings and other large air force formations' books like they sqns...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was pretty weird that the RAAF commissioned a history of all its obscure units in 1995 but didn't think to cover wings, groups, etc! I gathered material for an article on No. 1 Wing a while ago but didn't get around to writing it before the books needed to go back to the library. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re. the 1995 history, yep, tell me about it - I wrote three of the base histories in Volume 1 as a volunteer, choosing the ones I did mainly because they were of interest as ones my father had commanded, but when I looked for the wings he'd led, not a sausage...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:P00448.195RichmondWapitis.jpg
File:P00448.195RichmondWapitis.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:P00448.195RichmondWapitis.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) 07:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Corkhill
I just saw (after passing Pearl Corkhill) to GA status) that you had signed up to review the article while I was in the process of reviewing it. I apologize for neglecting to place a review tag on the GAN page before beginning the review; I hope it didn't disconcert you too much to already see the review begun :) Please feel free to add any further comments you may have to the GAN page - as I said, I passed the article before I saw your interest in it, hence the reason I didn't wait for your input before closing the review. Dana boomer (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh, I will of course give you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm sure in future you'll place the appropriate tag on the article...! My main annoyance apart from it being one I'd already peer reviewed and thus hopefully helped improve, was that it would have helped me a bit in the World War I context, but c'est la vie... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Brian Carbury
Don't know if you remember the discussion at Talk:Brian Carbury. I've finally got round to looking at the court-martial registers, and you can see the photos I took of the relevant double-page on Flickr, lefthand page, righthand page. The deatils of Carbury's court-martial and the charges against him are on the twelfth line down. If I'm reading it correctly (based on the instructions pasted inside the front cover of the register), he was charged with desertion (and found guilty), fraud (acquitted), 7 counts of "scandalous conduct", (guilty on 5 counts, acquitted of 2), 8 counts under section 40 of military law (guilty on 1 count, acquitted of 7). Initially sentenced to be cashiered, but this was commuted to simple dismissal. Of course, I've veered well into original research on this, but it does show that the original Gazette entry was correct. Not quite sure how much I can incorporate into the article, what do you think? David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse tardiness in replying, David - I will have a look as soon as I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many tks, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

GA for Pe-8
Don't want to nag, but don't forget to do all the clean-up on the Pe-8's discussion page since you passed it for GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, and here I was thinking, hmm, Storm forgot to raise one of the project classes on De La Rue to GA... Anyway, all done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Milhist Contest Dept: November 2009

 * Tks Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories/archive1
Hi, can you check one more time to see if your concerns have been addressed? Thank you for your detailed review. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At first glance it looks like a lot has been done but will need another day or two to get round to reviewing in detail, so pls stay tuned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will wait. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're tired of me by now, but as soon as you indicate your concerns are resolved, I will probably close the FLC. Cheers, and thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no worries - right now I'm just helping out on a couple of missing references for scores, while Trevor gets the citations for the last para of the intro, per my comments. With a bit of luck we'll all be done in the next 24 hours or so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurries—getting it right is more important than finishing quickly. That said, if you can finish up by 1:00 UTC on Saturday, that would be great. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's all buttoned up now and I've given it my support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2001

 * Rv good faith but unnecessary observation - almost all films have continuity problems if you look hard enough

Thanks for your input on 2001. Errors and continuity problems are of interest to film buffs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film) for example. All films have deleted scenes too so by this rationale deleted scenes shouldnt be included either? all of this is of interest to film buffs Jtagchair (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rationale, nevertheless I wouldn't put perceived continuity errors in the same category as deliberately shot&mdash;and then deleted&mdash;scenes, if that's what you mean. In any case, however interesting it is to film buffs (of which I'm one), WP is not a grab-bag of trivial information. BTW, it appears another editor has taken the same line that I did so you may want to take it to the film's talk page if you feel that strongly about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Random question
Hi Ian, Do you know if there's a brag list for new articles which get large numbers of page views? I started the RQ-170 Sentinel article a few days ago, and it got over 110,000 page views yesterday! Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, Batman - I feel like an ignorant monkey for not being one of them! As to a brag list, however, I only know of DYKSTATS for DYK articles that achieve the most hits the day they're the front page. FWIW, your figure is 40K more than the top scorer there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. There seems to have been a story on the UAV on Fox News in the US, which I guess is what generated the huge amount of traffic. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

November Aviation Contest

 * Thanks mate, congrats to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wrigley
Hey. I'm about to review Henry Wrigley for GA, but I noticed it's at ACR as well, which would make GA kinda superfluous. But I can still review it for GA if you want, give it another string to its bow, if that's what you want. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great if you could. Although some reviewers tend to make a GA pass automatic if the ACR is passed (or likely to, as this one appears), I'm always happy to have the added perspective of a different reviewer who might pick up something the ACR people didn't. Plus it helps if FA and consequent Four Award are possibilities. While I won't take this to FAC immediately ACR is completed, I may do after I've let it 'bed down' for a while at GA/A and if I find a little more info to add here or there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, I'll get on to that next after Charles Fryatt. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't much to do, actually. Very good article, especially after the ACR. Let me know when you've ironed out the little things, and I'll pass it. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Tks mate, and a happy festive season to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Tks Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 28 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) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) DYK nom
Hello, I just had a look at your DYK nom of Charles Eaton (RAAF officer), and your first and third hooks are fine. Your second one is, however, uncited. I've cleared the main and ALT2 hooks- so you don't actually have to do anything, if you're fine with one of those other hooks running. Thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Wackett
G'day Ian, I edited this article in the early days of my participation in WP. Although at the time I was very proud of my work and took it from 800-odd bytes to well over 20,000, looking at it now, it isn't all that good. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on a rework if you like; if you prefer to do it by yourself that would be fine too. YSSYguy (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)