Jump to content

User talk:Abraham, B.S.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MBK004 (talk | contribs)
Line 171: Line 171:
No problem, to be honest I didn't realize it was that big of a deal for the B class and below to self assess but I will be more mindful of that in the future. Here is a bit of a quandry though, I have recently been going through and cleaning up some of the assessments for the Medal of Honor recipients because there are a lot with problems (there were a lot that said stub that I made start and several that were at B that I downgraded to Start, etc). Since I am an active editor in ALL of the Medal of Honor recipients, that was probably inappropriate. If you find one that does not appear to rate B just let me know what its missing and I will see if I can get it up to speed. If your interested I have been building a couple pages to track the statuses of the Medal of Honor recipients (so its easier to work on them and get them promoted as well as add the ones that are missing) [[User:Kumioko/Medal of Honor (ACW)|Here]] are the American Civil War recipients and [[User:Kumioko/Medal of Honor|Here]] are the rest (Not quite done here yet but I should be in the next week or so. I have also added notes to some of them that I plan to work on to get them to the next level. I also wanted to suggest something, I know that the milhist project doesn't use the C class but I think we really should. I have found quite a few that are assessed as start that to me are really much more than start, but also arent quite B. Here is one example [[Zenas Bliss]]--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, to be honest I didn't realize it was that big of a deal for the B class and below to self assess but I will be more mindful of that in the future. Here is a bit of a quandry though, I have recently been going through and cleaning up some of the assessments for the Medal of Honor recipients because there are a lot with problems (there were a lot that said stub that I made start and several that were at B that I downgraded to Start, etc). Since I am an active editor in ALL of the Medal of Honor recipients, that was probably inappropriate. If you find one that does not appear to rate B just let me know what its missing and I will see if I can get it up to speed. If your interested I have been building a couple pages to track the statuses of the Medal of Honor recipients (so its easier to work on them and get them promoted as well as add the ones that are missing) [[User:Kumioko/Medal of Honor (ACW)|Here]] are the American Civil War recipients and [[User:Kumioko/Medal of Honor|Here]] are the rest (Not quite done here yet but I should be in the next week or so. I have also added notes to some of them that I plan to work on to get them to the next level. I also wanted to suggest something, I know that the milhist project doesn't use the C class but I think we really should. I have found quite a few that are assessed as start that to me are really much more than start, but also arent quite B. Here is one example [[Zenas Bliss]]--[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks again, I doubt you'll find too many that don't have me as the primary editor but I will submit them to that link you gave me. If it becomes a major issue I will withdraw from the contest, the contest really isn't that big of a deal to me anyway and with the activity of some of the contetants, yourself included, its unlikely I will ever win anyway. To be honest I entered it more to increase the visibility of the articles that I edit more then me getting credit for editing it. In regards to the assessments I have made, by all means if someone feels that one of the articles doesn't meet the qualifications please remove it. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks again, I doubt you'll find too many that don't have me as the primary editor but I will submit them to that link you gave me. If it becomes a major issue I will withdraw from the contest, the contest really isn't that big of a deal to me anyway and with the activity of some of the contetants, yourself included, its unlikely I will ever win anyway. To be honest I entered it more to increase the visibility of the articles that I edit more then me getting credit for editing it. In regards to the assessments I have made, by all means if someone feels that one of the articles doesn't meet the qualifications please remove it. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

== Yet another one of these for you ==

{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png|90px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves]]''''' 
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | For prolific work on – [[Walter Peeler]], [[Thomas Baker (aviator)]] and [[Cedric Howell]] – promoted to A-Class between November 2009 and January 2010, by order of the coordinators of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]], you are hereby awarded the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|A-Class medal with Oak Leaves]]. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 03:53, 26 January 2010

User:Abraham, B.S.
User:Abraham, B.S.
User talk:Abraham, B.S.
User talk:Abraham, B.S.
User:Abraham, B.S./Articles
User:Abraham, B.S./Articles
User:Abraham, B.S./Awards
User:Abraham, B.S./Awards
User:Abraham, B.S./DYK
User:Abraham, B.S./DYK
User:Abraham, B.S./Sandbox
User:Abraham, B.S./Sandbox
User:Abraham, B.S./Victoria Cross
User:Abraham, B.S./Victoria Cross

Welcome!

I don't think a separate article for Commodore, Flotillas (COMFLOT), is really required, but what do you think of mentioning him in the article as the designate seagoing battlegroup commander? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sounds like a fair idea, the only problem is trying to dig up any sources! Will have a poke around to see if I can spot anything. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look though the RAN website, but couldn't find anything relevant. Do you, by any chance, have any sources on this? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

award confusion

no problem! I saw it twice, and realized once from you and once from Roger, and figured, okay, signals at the best of times can get crossed.  :) I figured it would eventually disappear. cheers! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry about that, and the good nature you took it in. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVI (December 2009)
From the coordinators
Happy New Year to all! I shall take this opportunity to reflect upon the past year. In 2009 our project grew impressively, adding nearly 100 new featured articles and doubling the total number of featured lists. Overall the total number of articles within our scope surpassed 95,000 in 2009, and if these numbers hold steady we will surpass 100,000 articles in 2010. Thank you all for your outstanding efforts.

We are currently working on several proposals to improve the project for 2010. These include bringing the Milhist Academy up to full operational status, as well as spicing up and streamlining the task force structure. Also, any help you can offer to clear the current backlog of Military History good article nominations would be appreciated.

For the Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Morotai
  2. Castle
  3. North Carolina class battleship
  4. Xa Loi Pagoda raids

New featured lists:

  1. List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross
  2. List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories

New featured pictures:

  1. After the War a Medal and Maybe a Job
  2. Lincoln assassination conspirators execution
  3. National Fund for the Welsh Troops
  4. USS Annapolis in the Arctic
  5. Yiddish World War I poster

New A-Class articles:

  1. Battle of Bita Paka
  2. Battle of Ostrach
  3. Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)
  4. Design A-150 battleship
  5. Dutch 1913 battleship proposal
  6. Helmut Lent
  7. Henry Wrigley
  8. James Harold Cannan
  9. James Whiteside McCay
  10. Lebaudy Patrie
  11. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3
  12. Thomas Baker (aviator)
Project news
Awards and honours

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

grammar

Thank you. That is MUCH better than either of the predecessors. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the gramma was fine" - No, the grammar was incorrect.
"and the wording better" - Irrelevant POV.
"a significant proportion of bios/publications use similar wording." - Relevance? - A significant portion of the population use the phrases "youse guys" and "your wrong". However, that grammar is also incorrect. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Happy New Year to you, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmm. I prefer "later had", but at least it's not incorrect grammar. Another alternative you may prefer is "went on to have"? Pdfpdf (talk) And another: "subsequently had". Pdfpdf (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Contest points

Happy New Year to you as well! The article improvement contribution for that article has been started (by yourself) at the level of stub class and has been promoted till A-Class during the first round. In the second round the article has been promoted from A to FA and according to Article Creation and Improvement Points table you get 18 more points for this. If all this happened in a single round, the points awarded for this contributions would raise from 27 points (to A) to 45 points (to FA). All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well mate, this doesn't seem quite fair to me considering that I've checked the edit history of the article and it seemed that you did not make any major improvements during this round (only few tweaks). In my opinion the Article Improvement chart system should be applied throughout the contest and not only for individual rounds (plus I can assure you that the rule will apply for everybody in the same manner). If you don't agree with this feel free to start a new thread on the contest main talk page and we shall do as the majority of participants desire. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should have no worries and be confident that I'll double check any article improvement submissions and the system will be applied consistently to anyone. However, if you find any mistakes keep noticing me. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, great minds... Richard Minifie was on my list of WWI aces but I hadn't made any start, the first two in my sights were in any case Edgar McCloughry and Alexander Pentland unless you were particularly keen on doing them (there's still Edgar Johnston of the +20 Australians but of course we can negotiate)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I did notice that we both seemed to be working through the list of Australian flying aces of the First World War. ;-) You're welcome to McCloughry and Pentland, the former of which seems to be completely up your ally being an AVM and all. In regards to Johnston, I'll just put my gloves on while you can ring the bell ... just kidding. :) I was thinking of possibly working on Cedric Howell soon, if you have no vested interest or were keen on working on it yourself, that is? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWI Contest review

Hi mate, is there any chance that you'll have some free time to review Horses in World War I GAN? Is one of the few articles of considerable importance to be promoted during this contest. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

2009 "Military historian of the Year"
By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "great bios" and being an "all-round active participant/reviewer", I award you this Golden Wiki. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom! This is such an unexpected honour, and I extend my deep gratitute to all those who voted for me. :)) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick! And congratulations to you as well! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure to vote for you.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ruth! It was indeed a pleasure to vote for yourself as well. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of list of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients

Thanks for your review comments! If possible could you have a second look and let me know if this is progressing in the right direction. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the merge you suggested. It has a caveat now that I can't cope with at the moment (see A-Class review page). Please have a look. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Andrew Cowper

Updated DYK query On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Cowper, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howell

In fact prior to 1943 (or thereabouts) you had to have been mentioned before you were eligible for the DSO, so he must have been mentioend at least one. His RAF service record is online-I'll try to have a look next week that should mention all his honours (although it might not if he got it before the formation of the RAF - have you tried his Aussie service record?) - they normally give a date for the Gazette as well. Although forum posts aren't reliable sources you might find http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139769 interesting, and it will maybe point you toward a few more sources. David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, thanks tot he service record I was able to track down http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31106/supplements/287 (6 January 1919). If you look back to the first page of this supplement you'll see the actual despatch is dated 26 October 1918, before the DSO, but I can't quite work out how best to explain this in the article - we know the Mention and DSO must be for the same thing, but citing that might be tricky. You may find the rest of the record will help you a bit, so drop me a line if you want a copy. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me an email, and I should be able to send the record over by the end of tomorrow. David Underdown (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Villers-Bocage

I have only just got around to really working through the points you raised and addressing them. Thanks for the review!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, the only thing that comes to mind that needs to be clairfied is the emdashe bit you raised in your planning subsection of the review; cant for the live of me find anything remotely like that lol!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks allot bud!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cedric Howell

Updated DYK query On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cedric Howell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in WW1

Would you still like to review Horses in World War I? I'd rather step down and take down "my" review (say, to article talk page) - busy in RL. NVO (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self assessments

No problem, to be honest I didn't realize it was that big of a deal for the B class and below to self assess but I will be more mindful of that in the future. Here is a bit of a quandry though, I have recently been going through and cleaning up some of the assessments for the Medal of Honor recipients because there are a lot with problems (there were a lot that said stub that I made start and several that were at B that I downgraded to Start, etc). Since I am an active editor in ALL of the Medal of Honor recipients, that was probably inappropriate. If you find one that does not appear to rate B just let me know what its missing and I will see if I can get it up to speed. If your interested I have been building a couple pages to track the statuses of the Medal of Honor recipients (so its easier to work on them and get them promoted as well as add the ones that are missing) Here are the American Civil War recipients and Here are the rest (Not quite done here yet but I should be in the next week or so. I have also added notes to some of them that I plan to work on to get them to the next level. I also wanted to suggest something, I know that the milhist project doesn't use the C class but I think we really should. I have found quite a few that are assessed as start that to me are really much more than start, but also arent quite B. Here is one example Zenas Bliss--Kumioko (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I doubt you'll find too many that don't have me as the primary editor but I will submit them to that link you gave me. If it becomes a major issue I will withdraw from the contest, the contest really isn't that big of a deal to me anyway and with the activity of some of the contetants, yourself included, its unlikely I will ever win anyway. To be honest I entered it more to increase the visibility of the articles that I edit more then me getting credit for editing it. In regards to the assessments I have made, by all means if someone feels that one of the articles doesn't meet the qualifications please remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of these for you

The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
For prolific work on – Walter Peeler, Thomas Baker (aviator) and Cedric Howell – promoted to A-Class between November 2009 and January 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. -MBK004 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]