User talk:Jim Sweeney

Wikipedia:Navigation templates Template:World War Barnstar www.worldcat.org worldcat publishers locations

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list
News and announcements Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The September newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.	Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment
Featured article candidates Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS • Operation Matterhorn logistics • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark	Good article nominees 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Tel al-Sultan attack • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • HMS Regulus (1785) • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 • Pandour Corps • Central Powers • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • SMS Otter (1877) • Battle of Köse Dağ • Surface Fleet Review • Xifeng concentration camp • SMS Crocodill (1860) • Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II • Peugeot 8Aa • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Civilian Public Service • Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,759) • only work on referencing and citation (43,236) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,114) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,913) • work on structure (31,925) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,202) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,968) • only work on supporting materials (1,291) • assessment (68) • assessment as lists (6) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (34) • task forces added (6) • attention to task force coverage (655)

LRDG

Considering that you got the ball rolling and did a great deal of work improving the article, I say Well Done! And if I was somewhat grumpy at times - mea culpa and nothing personal - I had a lot of pressure on at the time with university stuff. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

Jim,

I gather from your page that you have been at this far longer than I have. But regarding the citation format on #4 Commando, please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes. You left the publishing year out of the citations. This should be easy to correct. When I did my first two major articles — USS PC-1264 and Wendell Fertig — I left the page numbers out. Took me hours to reread the sources and find the page numbers. A good lesson, as I'll never make that mistake again. The British Commandos and American Rangers were really impressive units. A shame that they were seldom used for the tasks they actually were trained for, but were more often used by traditional military leaders as elite infantry. As you probably know, they were often resented by the tradition military. During WW II, the U.S.Marine Corps resented the creation of Marine Raider and Paratroop units, as all Marines were suppose to be special. It basically took an 'order' from President Roosevelt to organize these units. One of his sons was XO of such a unit. Later in the war these units were disbanded.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi it has never been required to add year of publication but will do so when free.

Battle for Antwerp

Jim,

I was looking at your 4th Commando again, just to read about it. Then I remembered a book in my library - The Battle for Antwerp: the Liberation of the City and the Opening of the Scheldt 1944. Moulton J.L. (1978). Hippocrene Books, Inc., New York. The full title of the author is given as Major General J.L. Moulton CB, DSO, OBE. There are several references to 4th Commando in the book and its actions during this period. More importantly, there is a close up photograph of:

4 Commando, having spearheaded the assault on Flushing, marches off on 4 November to cross the Flushing gap and rejoin the 4th Commando Brigade in the dunes between Flushing and Westkapelle.

The photo is taken in the town with a good closeup of the column of men marching off to the left. Have you seen this?

The photo has an IWM following it, which means Imperial War Museum. Right? I guess this means it is in the public domain. If you don't have access to it, would you like me to scan it and send it to you? If you like, you could then use it in the article. If so, send me a note. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will recheck the IWM collection but did not see it the first time. If I can not locate it I would appreciate if you could scanit in thanks. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

LCA

Dear Jim, I'm hoping you might help me with something, please. I have a small section in the LCA page re:Orange Beach, Dieppe. It would be useful to link the "Hess Battery" mention to the No.4 Commando page subsection "Dieppe raid". I don't know how to do this, or even if it is possible. Could you cause this to happen? Thanks in advance, if you are ableAmesJussellR (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See article for suggestions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I'm starting to include some additional information. AmesJussellR (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 4 Commando

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unternehmen Bodenplatte

Thanks for the effort. Yes, the article reads better in the parts changed. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim. I missed your post earlier this morning. Thanks for all your doing. Killing red links and reducing size by shifting Sq. No's is great. I had not thought of it. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed your message Jim; my new message thingy seems not to be working. I cited it. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim do you mind giving me your honest opinion on the issues facing the article? Do you think it is overly detailed and not broad enough in scope? Dapi89 (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Bit of a slog! Dapi89 (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RAF coastal command during WWII

Thanks Jim. I'll use some of those. Yes, I had seen these 'seafires'! Dapi89 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jim Sweeney. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: GA Review for Canadian Afghan detainee issue

Hello Jim. Thank you so much for reviewing this article. I have responded to all points on your review. The only outstanding issue I feel there is is reference 30, which still redirects to a subscription page, but I am in contact with the article writer about that. Please let me know where we stand on the review. Thanks again! --Natural R_X 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I resolved that last link by removing it and reworking the paragraph. Please let me know if anything is outstanding. --Natural R_X 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much! This means a lot to me, because this is a hot topic in Canada. It's a good feeling to know that the Canadian public can now get informed by an article which is of GA quality :). Thanks again. --Natural R_X 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RN Battleships

Hey Jim, I saw you working on this and I've got a question. Is there a reason you are not using the established FLs produced by WP:OMT as a template? For example: List of battlecruisers of Germany, List of battleships of Germany, List of battlecruisers of Russia and List of battleships of Austria-Hungary -MBK₀₀₄ 03:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No only that I was not aware of the format, just started to make the previous list into a wiki table. I was starting to struggle anyway as the only source I have is what I can find on Google books --Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list in more depth it should not be hard to change them. Do FLC not want sortable lists ?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually FLC does want sortable lists, but in the case of these ship lists, separating them by classes and putting them in chronological order is enough. As you can see, the format has passed FLC four times already. The battle has already been fought. As to source issues, have you asked for help at WT:OMT yet? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just sort of started one edit then another and you know how it goes. I was going to do as much as I could then see if anyone had sources but I will at least restart using the format so when ready someone can take over. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jim Sweeney. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan#RN_battleships.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I wrote the Austro-Hungarian list from scratch and I was wondering if you need any help on this one? I'm currently working on the Ottoman list but I'm more than willing to assist you on this list if you need my help. So far you are doing a good job with the tables ect. You just need to add in some paragraphs for each class and get some source. I may be able to find a some sources here and there :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks any help would be appreciated I only started tinkering while waiting for some books on another subject to be delivered and have exhausted all the sources I had access to. If the article is split pre and post Dreadnought the post Dreadnought should be the easiest to finish.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unternehmen Paula

Hello Jim As you contributed to the Peer review, do you think OP has what it needs for GA? All I've got is in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I belive it has but I would change the name to Operaion Paula --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy - caps choice

Shouldn't that have been lower case "dreadnought"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you right. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Musketoon

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)

I wondered if you could spare a moment to have a look at this one. Do you think this is ready for GA reviews? Dapi89 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't very long (only 40kb). Just in case you were wondering (after the Boden' article). Dapi89 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick run through

• References could use the cite book template and publishing locations added
• ref 9 & 12 Richards 2010 - book not in bibliography
• The first two Hooton books don't seem to be used

Have to go now will look again --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Nigelish I think must have put the Richards one in. I'll ask. Dapi89 (talk) 18:58, 16 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 19:11, 17 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 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unternehmen Paula

Hi.

My nomination had disappeared without explanation. I don't know who removed it, how or why, but do you think you could assess it. It is not a very big article. Dapi89 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Had a better look I think it needs a copy edit to improve the flow --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to view the article Jim, it is appreciated. Dapi89 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Nice and easy. See, nothing like Bodenplatte! Dapi89 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Hi, please note that alt text is not required for WP:GAN articles, it is not mentioned in the WP:Good article criteria. Since early 2010 it is no longer required for WP:FAC either. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks did not know that for FAC--Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work on clearing the backlog. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Had some spare time so thought why not --Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

God knows that I appreciate it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reginald Pinney

I've had a go over the remaining issues, and hopefully they're resolved. Let me know if there's anything else (or anything needing redone) Shimgray | talk | 20:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Quickest GA review I've ever dealt with :-) Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

USS MIssissippi

You are amazing! Thanks for all the fine work at USS Mississippi, it is great to have someone with your experience putting-on the polish and tweaking the gnome-stuff. I'd like to chat about the US versus British spellings and dates. I prefer having US traditions on US articles and that is the way most of the source info is presented. I left the date format as it was in the article from which I expanded, and that seems consistent with the other US battleship articles. Personally, I don't like it, but don't want to buck a trend. As to the spelling, I'd like to see the series of articles on the US Navy consistent, with my personal preference leaning to that of the home-culture of the topic. There is no right way of course. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jim, I'm playing with a new idea where I can work in the 3" guns. I avoided those, since I thought the armament section was already pretty complex. My plan is to redistribute the info into a different format, add material on the 3" guns, then prune what will likely be some redundancy. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jim, I think we are looking good. Of course no article at WP is ever truly finished, but I think that we meet the GA criteria. Do you think this has potential for a FA? --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it could, but I would put it in for a MILHIST A class review. With more than one reviewer they iron out any problems and about 90% of A class article sail through FA. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I'm a little unclear on the process for nominating for MILHIST A class review. Could you do that? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. The nomination looks great! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For making a significant dent in the backlog of military history articles requiring GA review, I hereby award Jim Sweeney the Good Article Medal of Merit. Well done and thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No. 106 Fuze

Hello Jim, would you care to look through this article I've put together and comment, correct etc. ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UB-50

I've fixed most of the problems, barring the one cite needed tag in the note that states that says: "SM" stands for "Seiner Majestät" (English: His Majesty's) and combined with the U for Unterseeboot would be translated as His Majesty's Submarine. I don't really know if refs can be placed inside of notes, and I don't have an idea of how to cite that note, so I'd like some help. Buggie111 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Set up in the article --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done with all points. Buggie111 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939) ‎

Jim, do you have any further comments on the progress of the article? Dapi89 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tegetthoff

I've replied.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 17:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I think it's all done, just waiting for your approval. Buggie111 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

/* Third Anglo-Maratha War */

Would re-introducting the tables with modifications per pages 99-100 from this reference serve the purpose?

United Service Institution of India (1901), Journal of the United Service Institution of India, vol. 30, retrieved September 26, 2010

Also, does the use of images from pages 92-96 amount to WP:COPYVIO? Zuggernaut (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The book is not readable so I am unable to comment on teh tables and images copied would I suspect be under copy right --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lettice

Just to say thank you for your time and for the pass! Buchraeumer (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Anglo-Maratha War

Hello, Jim Sweeney. You have new messages at Talk:Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Good_news_-_Third_Anglo-Maratha_War_is_now_a_GA.21.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ruler class"

Why have you taken the category "World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom" off these articles and what is your source for them being named Ruler rather than Ameer class? Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• My source is Aircraft-Carrying Ships of the Royal Navy publisher=The History Press isbn=9780752446332, page 79 and a Google book search has [1] 160 hits for 'Ruler' as opposed to 77 for 'Ameer' [2] and

• Category Ruler class escort carrier is a Subcategorie of Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom. So there is no need for both on the articles. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just curious about that, but it might be an idea to try and find out why these carriers have two different class names.

Re: the category, I believe it's standard practice for individual ship articles to go into those categories. It's a long time since I looked at them but that's how they are usually handled IIRC. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

LCA Madagascar

Dear Jim, I'm hoping you might help me once more, please. I have a begun the Madagascar section in the LCA page. I know you'll be conversant with much of the campaign - my sources are limited to the internet and what I find in Philadelphia area libraries (pretty good, but not always terribly concerned with British naval/military matters). Does the Madagascar section seem reasonable to you? I have only gotten as far as Majunga.

Any critique would be gratefully accepted. Thanks in advance, if you are able to offer critique. AmesJussellR (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow down!

Hi Jim! I admire your dedication, but "Propulsion was provided a steam turbine, two boilers connected to one shaft giving ..." isn't terribly good English, and isn't terribly good engineering either - you don't connect the boilers to the shaft. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No. 4 Commando

Hi Jim, I saw that No. 4 Commando is going through a GA review so I ran through it with an eye to the MOS. I've made a few tweaks, but if you don't agree with my changes feel free to revert. Apologies if I've mucked anything up. BTW, there appear to be a few paragraphs not cited (might be the result of the earlier copy edit), but I think you will need to deal with these before it can pass GA. I'd help but am extremely limited in my online time for the next six to eight weeks, sorry. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will check--Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog contest

Hi Jim, I'm not sure if you know about this, but over the month of October the project is running a GAN review contest. It can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010. Given your hard work with reviewing, I thought you might be interested in entering. No pressure, of course. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Name added --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10

40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Avenger (D14)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Galland

Shall I give it a go first? If there's major improvements in flow then there will be no need to make a request. Up to you. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Attacker class escort carrier

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

64th (2nd Staffordshire) Regiment of Foot

Drop me a note when you've finished copyedit and I'll deal with the changes you raised on the talk page. I won't try now as too many edit conflicts. NtheP (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. I'd love to do the same for the 98th (Prince of Wales's) Regiment of Foot but their history is so much shorter and frankly less interesting that I think it would be something of a struggle. NtheP (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Vindex (D15)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Derry / Londonderry

Taken from the manual of style: To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute, a compromise solution was proposed and accepted regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate. Bjmullan (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nairana class escort carrier

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Nairana (D05)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check my edit

I corrected what I believe to be an obviously incorrect date in HMS Nairana (D05). Please check my work. -96.241.227.184 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stanley Gordon Orr

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth FAC

The featured article candidacy for Ronald Skirth is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Dwab3 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Amended to reflect FAC, not FAR, Woody (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard John Cork

Hello! Your submission of Richard John Cork 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! Arctic Night 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MilHist GAN Review Contest

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		On behalf of the coordinators, I'm pleased to award you this barnstar for reviewing articles in our October 2010 Contest-- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAS has wings???

Hello Jim, about this edit, couldn't you have toned down your ranting a wee bit there? Don't let the bastard get into your head, wil'ya? Please quote WP:LAME and WP:BRD next time then move on... he's not worth it, really. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when it is an editing dispute. And to be fair, he was reinstating the long term usage of that reference to support the flaming sword point that you changed when you reworked the article at the beginning of the year. Prior to your edits it had always said flaming sword and used that reference to support it. And reading the reference, I have to say I agree with the edit, as I don't think the tone is meaning it officially became over the years, but more some interpreted it to be over the years. Canterbury Tail talk 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So what do you call it when changes are made to referenced content with no other reference added ? and I did not change the the statement it always said that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference supports the flaming mention. And you did change it, see this edit. Before that edit it was stable with the reference for the flaming sword, after that you changed it to winged sword, then dagger, despite the references and stable long term edits for flaming sword. Incidentally the entire original reference for that was quite clear and stated (Bob Bennet)....designed by Bob Tait....he called it a Flaming Sword, but it became a winged dagger over the years", "(Johnny Cooper)....Bob Tait MM & Bar....designed it......and it's not a winged dagger. They're flames. The sword of Excalibur. When "The Winged Dagger" came out we laughed our heads off. For some reason you decided to change it and have been reverting users to change it back ever since by calling it vandalism. I'm sure you have a good reason, however the full reference seems quite clear to me. And to say you didn't change it is incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reads the same to me - their cap badge is a downward pointing winged sword worked in cloth of a Crusader shield with the motto Who Dares Wins with the note Designed by Bob Tait in 1941, it was originally a flaming sword, but it became a winged dagger over the years and your argument seems to be WP:LAME . Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the reference is saying it's a flaming sword, not a winged dagger. Some are calling it a winged dagger later, but doesn't mean it's correct. The original (deleted) reference even says quite clearly "and it's not a winged dagger. They're flames. The sword of Excalibur." And the argument is not lame, it's based very clearly on the reference, and several users seem to disagree with you. Canterbury Tail talk 00:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This really is lame suggest if you want to change it you post on the talk page and get a concensus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I suggest you read WP:LAME before you throw it around, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Also I was raising this point to you privately and pointing out that it's due to your rework on the page, rather than swishing it around publicly on the article talk page.

By the way, don't get me wrong, you've done a great job on the article and your work is hugely appreciated, which is why I never raised this one before. However it's starting to come up more frequently now. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

F-35 - "no mention of RAF or RN"

But the SDSR does say the RAF fast jet fleet will be Typhoons/Lightning IIs. Mark83 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald Cuthbert Hay

-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Dawson-Paul

Orlady (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Atkinson

-- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Richard John Cork

Orlady (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bader

Thanks for the info. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Advisor JS

Hi there. This is just a reminder to use the preview functionality after you edit a page with your advisor Javascript code. Two months ago (and I don't see how anyone noticed in this entire span of time), you accidentally changed File:A Good Riddance - George V of the United Kingdom cartoon in Punch, 1917.png to File:A Good Riddance — George V of the United Kingdom cartoon in Punch, 1917.png (see diff), leaving a blank image in the article. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

I thought its time to say thanks to all the editors who have assisted me in the articles I have been working on; so I took a look at toolserver.org and it shows that you have done 60,644 edits. I think you not only deserve, but are entitled to the below award in accordance with the award criteria. I know that one is supposed to award this medal to yourself, but we never do, so I am doing it on behalf of you! Thanks for all your help. Farawayman (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a
Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Battle of Sedan (1940)

Jim, if you have time in your wikipedia diary, could you assess this for GA please? Dapi89 (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Carrier identification

Hello, can you help in identifying this carrier next to HMS Unicorn, or maybe you know somebody who can help. Thank you Cobatfor (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

I am looking for more reviewers for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941). Both articles had passed A-class earlier but are not attracting any/many reviewers for FLC review. Maybe you can help and have a look and provide some feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Signals Badge

Jim, I work for SOinC(A), I was asked to change the Royal Signals Badge on the 'Royal Signals Origins' page as the one currently being used is out of date. I replaced it yesterday with the current working image. It was changed back this morning, could I ask that it can be replaced with the new image? Thanks

BegoneDullcare (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done but there is a problem with the copyright as you don't own it. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no problem with the copyright, I got the image from SO1 Comm & Herritage. He heads up the dept that does own it and is happy it appears here. Thanks Jim BegoneDullcare (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Its Crown copyright but if no one complains it will be ok, and we can claim its free use and irreplaceable. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to high quality content, outstanding GAN backlog work, and assistance to project members. For the Military history Project coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)