User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2010

Holiday
Take care. Looks like the MILHIST and AUS FA output will probably drop by 20%+ then  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate. Heh, you're too kind, as always. I was hoping to maintain an average of one FA per month by getting Bill Newton through shortly and Albert Ball in July but at this rate methinks Albert will have to wait till August -- still need some library items to complete that one and it ain't gonna happen in the next 48 hours... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your trip Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reply as we continue on towards the end of our trip, and to see if I can still remember how to edit... In Sorrento as we speak, having spent the day at Pompeii -- tks for the good wishes, take care, and see you round! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I hope that making this edit wasn't as sad for you as it is when I make similar ones at the end of holidays ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Well, commenting it out is not as permanent as deleting it, so not quite so sad. Reason is that my wife has made the mistake of suggesting that she might release me for a trip to Egypt (not one of her preferred destinations, unlike Europe) later this year, and I may take her up on it...! The tour I'm looking at includes El Alamein - should try and get a few along from MilHist... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm jealous! (though I am in the very early stages of planning a visit to Normandy and Flanders late next year). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Made it to Normandy a few years ago but never seen Flanders (WWII always held the greater interest for me until recently, and I can probably thank MilHist for redressing the balance!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Administratorship
Hi Ian, I'm not sure if I or anyone else has suggested this to you, but have you considered nominating to become an administrator? I don't see any reason why you wouldn't pass an RfA if you put your hand up. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I do appreciate the thought. Actually two others have suggested this in the past and my response has been that I didn't feel I could do it justice while concentrating on article-writing (admire those like yourself and Parsec who can do it, but I couldn't). Now having returned from o/s, my main priority is editing thousands of pictures and hours of video so aside from not taking interest in articles, I'm just hoping I can do enough at MilHist to justify the coordinator role!  Never say never, however, and if I think I could make a go of the admin role in future, I might reconsider.  Cheers and thanks again, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you change your mind I'd be happy to nominate you. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ian: a) For your amusement, I thought it might bring you a smile to know that, over the years, several people have suggested that I might want to nominate myself. (Come on. Stop laughing. It's not THAT funny ... )
 * b) When I responded: "Why would I want to make myself a target for nutters and malcontents?", they never asked again ...
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. See separate posting.

Awaiting ordure
I just made some corrections to Manfred von Richthofen. Marvel of marvels, I even cited them. Now, let's see what type of ordure hits the automatic circular air-circulatory device (lol).

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll keep an eye on it... By the way, now I'm back from overseas, I will eventually return to the Albert Ball article -- still keen to see that at GA/A/FA, just taking a while to get back into the swing of things research-and-writing-wise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am tee-totally amazed. I got away with it. I had somebody shoot down their beloved Red Baron, and NO ONE noticed. If fact, I based a DYK on it, and got pretty much a yawn...fewer than 3K hits.

Well, if I can get away with that, maybe I dast sneak into the lion's den again...as in Tuskegee Airmen. I am gathering up reference materials right now. Would you care to Waltz Matilda with me on that one? With your editing and my writing, we might get a relatively easy FA out of it. Of course, we also stand a fair chance to catch some ethnic grief about it, cobber.

And, as a random FYI, the number of notable WWI fighter aces without bios is down to just over 200 of the approximate 1,850 eligibles. And I am closing in on them, too. Perseverance furthers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

William Bostock
Hi - I saw your revert here. While I agree that he's primarily known as a soldier, I also think that his political career merits proper attention in the infobox - he was an MP for almost ten years, after all. As it stands the infobox has no information about the exact dates of his parliamentary career (something that all other MPs have, and something that's undoubtedly useful to anyone looking at his article for that reason), and nothing about his political party either. Having said that, I agree that the infobox as it was did give undue importance to his political career over his military one. I don't suppose there's another way this could be achieved? (I've no involvement with WP:MILHIST, which I know from afar as an excellent but idiosyncratic group, and I do wish their infoboxes were a bit more standard so that these kind of things could be accommodated.) Thanks! Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your thinking above, I agree the political career merits more attention than simply the "Other work" parameter in the military person infobox, just not over and above the military data. If we could add the political data below the military info, with the military person infobox still providing the template, I think that would satisfy both of us.  Incidentally, the other thing I like about the military infobox is simply that it seems to be wider than the political ones, so the info isn't wrapped around multiple lines so often.  I did manage to improve the aviator infobox to include the alt text parameter recently, so I'd be happy to look into the possibility of grafting additional parameters to the military infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a way to do that it would be great. Ideally it would have space for the exact dates of his term of service, his predecessor and successor, and his political party. It would be great to give the military template this capability. (I agree to an extent that the political infoboxes are quite thin, although this does ensure less white space around the portraits.) Frickeg (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup :-)
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff
Hi. Good to see you back. Informing you that Meckiff is back after some remedial action on his bowling technique  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

British Commonwealth - FYI
Ian & "Rupert": I thought you might be interested in what's been going on at Talk:John Whittle and User talk:Abecedare. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again the Red Baron
There is a suggestion on his talk page that someone take the article to GA and/or FA status. This may be your hint to pitch in, cobber.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, that would be a nice challenge, I seem to remember thinking of this one as our next collaborative effort after Albert Ball so I guess I can't back away fron it! However I'd like to finish Ball first and am working on that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cullen
Ehi who are you to say that Hakan Gustavsson aviation page is not relliable??? WHo are You??? He is an historian so please be quiet and do not delete other contributors work. Or you should show why that page is not reliable. DO it, if you can. That man is an historian that published aviation books. Try to be more humble and do not forget tha wikipedia is not your private little field. regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down, it's not a question of ownership but of quality and reliability -- I'm always happy to see new info if it fits those criteria. I saw this site when preparing the article and although it purports to be by an historian, it doesn't alter the blog quality of the page, which means it didn't sit well with me as a reliable source, particularly as there were other clearly reliable ones available, which I used. Since you want to pursue this, I'm happy to seek other opinions on the site's quality for use as a reference and I'm sure you'll abide by consensus, as will I... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Battle of Morotai
Thank you, I've been fighting a battle over the IPs edits, I reported them to WP:AIV, however, they disagreed on blocking the editor, saying that it was not vandalism, see:. Do you have any suggestions for stopping the disruptive edits? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a problem when it's not obvious vandalism, admins tend to treat it as content dispute instead and you're in danger of being seen to violate the 3-revert rule if you remove things too zealously. Best thing I think is to have more eyes on it (as with me) to spread the load of reversions but we could also seek protection for the article (stopping IP editors) as opposed to seeking a block for the editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been 2 more edits this evening, see: . Could you review those edits for their accuracy? I've also requested expert verification for the article, are you able to do that or is there an area of WPMILHIST that would do that for the article? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

 * Thanks Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Help

 * "Sure you want to do all these yourself, Tom? Be happy to say do the 1-stripers if you want to handle the higher ones..."

Well, if you volunteering, then how about we split the load evenly? I'll take the top section (Award period Jul-Dec 2009), and you can take the bottom section (Award period Jan-Jun 2010). How does that sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine -- I noted your last post on Rog's page and recall that we were going to do the tallying and awarding together some time ago but never made it, so we both have a little debt there...! I'm out for the day now but will make a start later on with the Jan-Jun 2010 awards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

August contest
Hi, Ian. Thanks for verifying all those results, it makes it a lot quicker when there's two people doing it instead of one. I've tallied the results offline in an Excel spreadsheet but I was wondering if you would mind tallying them up also and checking my maths. I think we have a tie, so I'd appreciate a second set of eyes in case I made an error. My count is 10 editors, 67 articles, with two editors ending up on 133 points, and other editors scoring 53, 35, 21, 20, 15, 15, 11 and 5 points respectively. Is this what you get? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay mate, will get on to that shortly and check, just in the middle of upgrading Word on the laptop... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, just did my own arithmatic and your figures look fine to me. I'm happy to update the table and newsletter and hand out awards to YM, SV and HP, unless you have a burning desire to do so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's fine. If you want to do it, I'm happy with that. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regale us
with a historical tale soon?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, have to admit I don't feel compelled to write much at the moment following the last o/s trip and preparation for another next month, although I do have one or two things running in background as it were. I'll probably largely restrict myself to reviews, coord-type tasks, and the odd edit for a while. Thanks for asking though, and congrats on a great writing effort of your own this past month...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running the thing.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and AustralianRupert... ;-) No probs, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the Writer's Barnstar. Very much appreciated. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleasure, well done! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Poke? Buggie111 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Go Team!

 * Many thanks, Tom -- I'd give you one as well for your efforts but then it'd look like we were in cahoots...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you Ian for the Award. I appreciate! Per Honor et Gloria ✍  04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! GregorB (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And thank you very much for mine as well! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   08:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your award! Thank you very much!!--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kallo
Thank you for your advisements. I've restored some content previously copyedited of the background section. The second stage of the Eighty Years' War refers to what happened from the end of the Twelwe Years' Truce in 1621 to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. There were offensive campaigns against the Dutch during this period (See the Siege of Breda, for example), but after the loss of the Fort Shenck it was decided to give priority to the operations against the French, dividing the army of Flanders in two. The major force invaded France while the secondary was left to the defend the Dutch frontier. ElBufon (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob, I think I get what you were saying, but the phrase "both in 1636 and 1637" sounds odd when juxtaposed with the broader timeframe of "the second stage of the Eighty Years' War". Do we really need the latter phrase given the specific years you mention? Could the start of that section be rephrased as While no major offensive operation was carried out against the United Provinces by the Spanish Army of Flanders during 1636–37, in July 1637 the statholder Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange, marched into northern Barbant in command of an army of 18,000 soldiers and invested the Spanish-ruled city of Breda.? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Baltringer Haufen
Thanks for assessing the article. You mentioned in the edit summary that some sentences were uncited. Could you please indicate which ones you had in mind? I will then add the respective reference. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Yours was an article I did as part of a personal assessment drive last night so I didn't have time for more detail at the time. The areas I referred to are the last sentence of the Escalation section, and the second-last sentence of Aftermath. MilHist B-class is quite strict on referencing, requiring every paragraph to have at least one citation at the end. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I rearranged the the last sentence of the Escalation section since the source for the statement was the same as the previous source. I probably should have written it differently in order to avoid any ambiguity. I rephrased/changed the second-last sentence of the Aftermath section and added a source. Please have a look. Any comments welcome. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, first one I mentioned is fine but I realise now I misled you about the other -- when I said second-last sentence of Aftermath I meant second-last paragraph (the single-sentence one). Sorry for confusion... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I added sources for the statement. (BTW, thanks for the copyediting) Any comments? Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me -- assessed as B-Class for the Military History project. Incidentally, if you'd like other articles you work on to be assessed against B-Class criteria by the MilHist project, you can add them here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire
I've replied to everything.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted -- I'll be away for a day or so but will re-check the article/review then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Zach
Thanks for taking the time to look over the Anton von Zach article. The Smith-Kudrna citations refer to an entry in the External references section. If I cannot cite a French wikipedia source (in this case, who married who) directly, then do I cite the source in the French WP article? I discovered this bit of information about Zach; it would be a shame not to use it. Please let me know how I should handle this. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I misread "Smith-Kudrna" as one author's compound surname, not two authors as in the external link. Two things on this one: 1) the short citation for two authors like this should read "Smith; Kudrna" or "Smith & Kudrna", not "Smith-Kudrna"; 2) if an external link is actually cited, it should be included in the References section, not in External Links. External Links should be used as kind of a Further Reading section for online sources. As to the other item, yes, if you trust the source in the French WP article, cite it directly in your English version as you do the other sources already there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the suggested changes (I hope), plus used the opportunity to improve the article with some material. I removed the "Printed materials" heading so that an on-line source could go under "References". Djmaschek (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, that looks good. I made one little tweak and assessed as B for all projects -- will make a note on the MilHist Assessment Requests page as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sevastopol
I have her at WP:MHAR, just to let you know. Buggie111 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's how I spotted her -- had to buzz off for a bit after the ce but will try to get back for assessment soon, if no-one beats me to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to dash off again -- could you get the Bibliography entries consistent? Right now they're a bit all over the place... Happy to rate as B after that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning, their not alphabetically ordered, or they don't all use citebook? I presume (and will start working on) the latter.Buggie111 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the latter -- that will standarise format and data. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thank you again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Ian Rose's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence I log on to WP for the first time on my trip away in Egypt the same day you give me this -- thank you very much, I'm honoured! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Thanks, Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unknown French General
Any idea who this well-decorated person is? Photo is from Harvard Art Museum, who says he's General Giroflore... Scewing (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Woody, the medals he's wearing include commandeur of the Légion d'honneur (the front medal around his neck), the Crimea Medal (British medal with clasps second from the right of image), the British Order of the Bath (large rectangular medal second from left on ribbon bar). It all suggests he was prominent in the Second French Empire Scewing (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Frank McNamara (VC) is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 26, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 26, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#0F0F0F">Ta <font color="#DAA520">lk <font color="#2C1608">C. 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

Frank McNamara (1894–1961) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest decoration for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to a member of the British and Commonwealth forces. Serving with the Australian Flying Corps, he was honoured for his actions on 20 March 1917, when he rescued a fellow pilot who had been forced down behind enemy lines. McNamara was the first Australian aviator, and the only one in World War I, to receive the Victoria Cross. He later became a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Born and educated in Victoria, McNamara was a teacher when he joined the militia prior to World War I. In 1915, he was selected for pilot training at Central Flying School, Point Cook, and transferred to the Australian Flying Corps the following year. He was based in the Middle East with No. 1 Squadron when he earned the Victoria Cross. In 1921, McNamara enlisted as a Flying Officer in the newly formed RAAF, rising to the rank of Air Vice Marshal by 1942. He held senior posts in England and Aden during World War II. Retiring from the Air Force in 1946, McNamara continued to live in Britain until his death from heart failure in 1961. (more...)
 * Thanks, I check edits to the article on a regular basis and it still looks okay to me, same with the TFA blurb -- only the "more" link needed disambiguation, which I've done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you got a notification - I only discovered that Convoy GP55 was going to be the TFA by chance a day before it appeared... Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I remembered that one -- congrats! This official note just popped up, but I had early warning a few days ago when I found time to check my watchlist and saw something that included "TFA" in an edit summary for the article's talk page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Panama Canal VANDALISM
Dear Ian,

They may have to protect that page. For what ever reason, along with the BOMB page the vandalism freaks love it. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

 * Tks for organising, guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sword B class status
Hello, I Believe Sword deserves a reassessment to B class and would appreciate your input. thx, --87.70.124.157 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek IV GAn
I believe I responded to all your questions. The question on "practical" lighting was the most difficult, I've tried reorganizing the sentence to hopefully make it clearer that it's an issue of doing things in-camera without later effects. See if that helps, and thanks again for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi David, yes that concept wasn't easy to put into words but I think you did fine with your little re-write. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

John Slessor awards
Thanks for your "heads up" on references. My source is rafweb - I trust that's sufficiently strong, I'll add it anyway. I disagree on the awards list point. There are many articles where this summary approach is used and they're useful as easy references (eg Dwight D. Eisenhower, a B rated article). My personal view is that I advocate accessibility to encourage use and that adherence to rules and an "encyclopedic" or "academic" approach should be second to that (verifiability above all of course). In some cases, the main text can be so detailed or long that summaries of some topics are justifiable. Perhaps the way ahead on ODMs (Orders, Decorations & Medals) is to get a consensus from both the MILHIST and ODM projects. Meanwhile, I'll sort the citations. By the way, FYI, I've done the same approach to all the MRAFs listed in rafweb. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rafweb is okay for B-Class and has been accepted on some GA articles, so no problem as far as that goes on this article; however it would likely not be deemed suitable for MilHist A-Class or for FA. A number of us in MilHist have had the discussion re. listing all campaign/service medals along with the orders and decorations and I can point you to dozens of A/FA-Class articles that deem their listing superfluous. One of the arguments is that orders and decorations are already conveniently listed in the infobox, while campaign/service medals are not of particular interest by their nature, granted for being in a particular place at a particular time rather than for some conspicuous act. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about campaign medals, I would exclude them (although they are a quick guide to an individual's service, I suppose). Not sure about long service awards - do you have any in mind? One could take similar view about some foreign awards - they seem to "in the rations" for some senior officers, although effective staff and other rear-echelon work is essential - I'd leave them in. I was advised some time ago to thin down the content of infoboxes, and the lower grades of an award are obvious (a KBE doesn't need his MBE and OBE to be mentioned in the infobox), as are citation, for removal. Award dates, I think, should also be moved and I now prefer not to record all awards there. This maintains the focus. Having removed such data, however, surely it needs to be resited and a dedicated section is appropriate, IMO. I note some people have separate articles for their awards; one wonders at the scrap value of their chests. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring Add "Popular Culture References similar to Rommel
Keenly interested in the "Culture Refereences to militray leaders whether Genneral Joseph Stilwell in the film 1941 (film) or Albert Kesselring in the film Which Way to the Front?.

Would like to sart an Albert Kesslering in Popular Culture section with this information

Kesselring and Kesselring's double were portrayed by Jerry Lewis in the 1970 movie "Which Way to the Front?." This film focused in a fictional manner Kesselring's command tenure in Italy. While Kesselring has been prortrayed in seconadry roles by second string actors in movies such as "Anzio" and the "Battle of Britain", the movie "Which Way to the Front?" is the only known movie to have Kesselring portrayed by someone in a leading and staring role.

ProSanta0001 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on Kesselring talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 77 Wing RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ADB
Caldwell presumably isn't in the ADB because he died after the cut off date for it's most recently published edition. It's website states that it covers people who died prior to 1980 (with a small number who died during the 1980s). They're apparently working on producing biographies of people who died prior to 2000, but don't give an expected publishing date. The ADB team have taken over a wing of a building at the Australian National University, so they do seem to be working on it ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain why my old friend (first ACR/FAC) George Jones isn't in it, while his old enemy Bostock (who died in the 60s) is. ANU, eh?  Tks for that tidbit, mate -- always helps to have a spy in Canberra... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 79 Wing RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 71 Wing RAAF
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Convoy Faith
Hi Ian, I've been working on the Convoy Faith article for some time and would be interested in your views on whether it's worth nominating it for A class. The literature on this attack is surprisingly limited so I think that it's comprehensive. The question is whether it's comprehensive and well written enough to pass an ACR. I'm working on a map showing the convoy's route (though finding a PD map of the Atlantic is amazingly hard!) Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to have a look this this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, had a look. It's borderline IMO for detail, a bit shorter than most of your A-Class ones, but on the other hand it's a single relatively short action so there's a limit isn't there? It'd certainly be appropriate for GA although I think you tend to leave that class alone. Anyway it's put together well so perhaps expand the lead a bit and add the map and it'd probably get over the line for length in ACR... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Ian. I was actually thinking of trying my hand with GANs for this and a few other shortish articles (No. 80 Wing, No. 79 Sqn, and one or two others) today so I might take that path, at least initially. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you say that, when I was starting my recent expansion of the wings, I had a squiz at 80 Wing and was going to suggest it'd be ideal for GA but decided against it because you weren't into that...! I wasn't initially either but eventually I decided it had a purpose for articles between B and A, especially after I helped get it (and FA) recognised in the monthly writing contest (!) -- perhaps we'll see you at that next... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it, but uni gets in the way for most of the time at the moment (if you haven't tried it, I don't recommend combining full-time work in a busy job and past-time study!). Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 73 Wing RAAF
Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Stroukoff/CG-20 DYK review
Hi there, thanks for reviewing my hook. :) If it wouldn't be too much of a bother, could you perhaps take a look at it again? As I've re-written the hook to add another Stroukoff-designed aircraft I just made an article for. Thanks! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't think three articles in the one hook is a record, but it's still a great effort! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True - there was a "venoms" one recently that I think went to seven articles in the hook (!!). I could add a fourth, since I expanded Chase Aircraft, but I'll slot it in seperate. Thanks again! :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 09:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trove
Hi Ian, great work with No. 76 Wing RAAF! FYI, the NLA's Trove website can now automatically generate Wikipedia references for news stories - the instructions for how to do so are at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. It's a rather helpful feature! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- bit more like the Gazette now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

DYK for Gordon Steege
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * First time I've done that, and just one point in it -- tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 76 Wing RAAF
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for RAAF Base Richmond
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

National archives of Australia
I'm not sure why I didn't think of looking at the NAA before, but it seems to have digitalised the unit history records of quite a few RAAF units. I've just been able to find the exact dates No. 71 and No. 76 Wings disbanded, for instance (no luck with No. 72 Wing though). The NAA has also implemented a much improved records search interface as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, it never occurred to me either, even though I've used them often enough as a last resort in RAAF bios -- tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 72 Wing RAAF
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Les Jackson
On a different topic, can you see anything which could be used for an interesting DYK hook in No. 61 Wing RAAF? - I can't. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's great to have the article but true not much leaps out. For me prob'ly "During early 1944 No. 61 Wing built a 10,000 feet (3,000 m)-long runway at Darwin to accommodate a projected deployment of USAAF B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers" is the best, although be better if we could say they actually deployed. Or on the other hand if we could say "...that never in fact deployed" or some such (you'd have to put that in the article) it might be even more noteworthy... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably the closest to a hook there is. The proposed deployment of B-29s to Darwin didn't go ahead, but I think that they occasionally passed through and used it as a refueling point during reconnaissance patrols, which doesn't make for a good hook! Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're able to put all that in the article with refs, and just had the DYK hook finishing with "that never went ahead", it's still strictly true without being too involved and boring... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, and done. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. 73 Wing RAAF
Hello Ian. I have completed the GA review for No. 73 Wing RAAF now. There is just one minor outstanding issue to be resolved after which I will be happy promote. When you get a chance please have a look at Talk:No. 73 Wing RAAF/GA1. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment request
Hi. Can you please get back to the assessment request for Kirill Meretskov, which you have responded to earlier, and confirm whether it is B-class or not? Thanks.D2306 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will address there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Francis Jackson
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RAAF air marshals
Hi Ian. I'm not sure if you were aware or not, but a few months ago while you were overseas I created List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals. Well, there are quite a few redlinks there that may need filling ... ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes I did notice it at the time, and then it slipped my mind as I went travelling in Europe and Egypt, edited thousands of resultant digital photos and videos, and suddenly re-ignited my interest in RAAF wing and ace articles that you might have seen floating by... ;-) I just want you to know that that online Air Marshals resource you used was originally a book by Chris Coulthard-Clark, the only known hard copy of which resides in the Office of Air Force History in Canberra; I used to annoy the hell out of a very patient Squadron Leader down there by requesting photocopies of pages of interest to be faxed to me in Sydney when I couldn't find the data elsewhere... and now they put it on the website for the likes of you to just pick and choose from at will -- where's the challenge say I, where's the sweat and the tears, goddammit...!?! Anyway, believe it or not I was just looking at the list tonight and considering which ones I might do next, especially if they had a combat career, so you never know...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been both envious of your time overseas and, as usual, highly interested in your recent contributions that I have come across. Heh, that's interesting; would have been difficult to maintain a hardcopy, though, whenever someone received a promotion ... Haha, that's probably the reason why it appeared online! The challenge was in constructing the sortable table and collating the data! ;-) Well, there are some very interesting people among the list, I must say. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's a good list -- FWIW, I was going to continue on my merry way with another ace bio, namely Peter Jeffrey who was CO of 3SQN and, briefly, 75SQN (before the two Jacksons) but I have to get a decent source for his death date (the only one I see right now is the 3SQN Association site, probably quite accurate but not exactly reliable by our stds). So you'll be pleased to hear I'm going to Plan B, which is filling in gaps among wartime Wing OCs, starting with Ian McLachlan who, while not a red link in the Air Marshals list at the moment, is just a two-line stub -- but not for long... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Are there any recent books an aces that could shed some light, or perhaps any orbits available? Pain in the butt, that is ... I noticed the stub on McLachlan pop up recently, and I look forward to see what you plan to do with it! I still need to get back to working on Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll; see if I can get that into the mainspace before New Years! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the prob with aces who go at a certain time... If they died before 1996, Dennis Newton kindly gives the death date in Australian Air Aces (Garrison in Australian Fighter Aces rarely bothers), and if they died after 2000, you've a decent chance of finding an online obit, but Jeffrey seems to have died in 1997 so it might be tracking down an issue of RAAF News at the Mitchell Library for him... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is a bit of a problem. I know you can access copies of RAAF News online. The ones off the Department of Defence website only go back to 2007 I think, but you can access earlier versions through Google, though I'm not completely sure if they go back to 1997 - I think Army News does, but not too sure about RAAF News ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, stuck a list of red links I might make blue on the List of RAAF AMs talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

78 Wing and 81 Wing
Hi Ian, I finally made it across to the ANU library today (only a week or two later than I said I would...) and looked up the details of 78 and 81 Wings in Jane's World Air Forces. 78 Wing first re-appeaed in the 2001 edition, which is dated October 2001, and comprised 76 and 79 Sqns and 2 OCU (all of which were transferred from 81 Wing). It doesn't say when the wing was re-raised, unfortunately. The relevant page number is p. 19 and the ISBN is 0710612931. The ANU's archive of Jane's World Air Forces goes back to 1998, and 81 Wing is present in all of them (prior to the 2001 edition it comprised 3, 25, 75, 76, 77, 79 Sqns and 2 OCU - which must have kept its commander busy!). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, mate -- well that should give me enough to go on getting the 78WG article up to B-Class standard like the rest, though I wish I could find my original ref for it being officially disbanded in 1966... After that it'll be 82WG I s'pose but I know that one's been around forever -- only prob with it is that it has no web page on the RAAF site now.  Are they trying to tell us something -- where are they at with the Super Hornets...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the RAAF's website, the F-111s are still the main equipment of No. 1 and No. 6 Squadrons and the page on the Super Hornet is written in the future tense . So yeah, I hope that they're updating the 82 Wing page! Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remind me, are the Super Hornets just on lease till we (supposedly!) get the F-35s, like the Phantoms prior to the F-111 in the 70s? If so, I'd be dubious about 82WG having a life after the F-35 comes in as they'd probably all just go to 81WG, with 78WG remaining for the Hawks and so on...  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Super Hornets are only planned to be in RAAF service for about 10 years (from memory) when they'll be replaced by F-35s and be sold to the US Navy. 82 Wing may survive, however, as the RAAF needs more than one deployable combat wing headquarters (I recall reading a while ago that both 81 and 82 Wing HQs are now cross-trained and don't specialise in just 'their' kind of aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be good -- the cross-training is probably the legacy of combining Strike Reconnaissance and Tactical Fighter Groups into one, as ACG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leslie Douglas Jackson
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a comment in a Move Page request
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.

Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc...

Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ian Dougald McLachlan DYK nomination
Hi Ian, I've proposed a minor tweak to get this under the 200 character limit. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ian Dougald McLachlan
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)



37 Sqn
Hi Ian, are you still working on this one? If not, I'll add a bit from the RAAF unit histories to get it to B class. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I've got a fair bit to finalise right now, and then I was going to put up for B-Class myself -- feel free to add a bit more after that though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done my dash I think. Reckon it's B-Class now but no doubt there's a bit to add from the unit books. If you feel like doing the main expansion for 36SQN and then I'll do some filling in from my book, feel free there too -- I'm not in a hurry to do another transport squadron... ;-) cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Ian! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

John Fraser Drummond Article Rating/Comment
I've seen you rated and left a comment on John Fraser Drummond Discussion page. I understand what you are saying that some things needed to be improved for "B-Class". As for you mentioning the "Bibliography" or "books", I've renamed a couple of pages as "Further Reading" for books, and placed the en.Wikipedia.org ISBN code for ISBN numbers for the books. Feedback would be appreciated. Because I am still unclear about exactly where to place the "Book" sources and their ISBNs (on an article) so people can find a book if they wanted to get it. Thanks for looking at the article. Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, not ignoring this, just got a fair bit on now -- I'll definitely try to check on it again in the next few days, poke me again if I don't! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, as far as actually formatting book sources goes, your first few book entries are fine; the last two should be formatted the same way. in terms of where to put things, if a book source is actually cited in the article, it should be under a "References" or "Bibliography" heading; if you haven't cited the source but want to point people towards further info, put the books under a "Further reading" heading -- example here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ Bibliography is done properly. Adamdaley (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you
Thought you had gone walkabout.

May your coming year be your best one yet. I hope to be fortunate enough to cooperate with you again this year.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks mate. I haven't forgotten Albert Ball but must admit I got all "Great War'd out" after a while, went travelling, and eased back into writing with WWII articles.  I will have another look at his article as I've got a feeling I exhausted all the sources I had and it might be time for you to take another look and see if there's anything you can add before we consider GA review, etc.  I know I put more images in and polished the prose and used what sources I could find so it may not be too far off the next level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek IV
Don't feel back, there's another one in the works... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stan Dallas
I believe fully in your competence as a co-author. I do not even recall the change in question. Certainly, if it is incorrect, then it should be changed back to an unconfirmed victory.
 * Well I'm sure if you added a confirmation from Above the Lines then that's what that source says but I know Newton says u/c. From memory you don't have a copy of his bio on hand but I may be able to sneak a peak at a copy, so let's make that the "decider", eh?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take another look at Albert Ball. The only item I can think of that is missing is his membership in the nascent Boy Scouts, and the Scouts' tribute at his funeral.

I do have one lurking suspicion in my mind, and it is one that is not voiced in history. Ball was last seen pursuing a scarlet Fokker Triplane. Lothar von Richthofen was downed in that same fight, with no victor ascribed. It is my personal belief (unbuttressed by any sources I have discovered) that Ball downed Lothar, and fell victim to vertigo in the process. Of course, I could not add this to the article.

I have another of those lurkers concerning the Red Baron....
 * Sounds plausible but I agree we need a reliable source to say that.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, it's good to hear from you again. I'm aboard for Ball if you want me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Georgejdorner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did I think Point Cook started in 1912 or 1913 (???) Goes to show. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, CFS at Point Cook was established around 1913, but there wasn't anything called an Australian Flying Corps till mid-1914 (though I grant you they probably weren't easily distinguishable at that stage)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Mashbir GA Review
Hi, Just wondering if you still intended to do the Sidney Mashbir GA review? I know its been the busy/holiday period so I understand if you are still getting to it.

Regards, Aeonx (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still like to do it if it's okay -- I'm slowly getting to GARs in the order I've tagged them and yours is next after the one I'm on at the moment (which is a big 'un but in progress)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay no worries. :) -- Aeonx (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ready for you as of yesterday, mate... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Manfred Von?
See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)