User talk:Ian Rose

    Hi and welcome to Ian's Talk. Please leave new comments at the end of the page. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply to you here to keep the conversation thread in one place. Cheers, Ian.

/Archive 2006
/Archive Jan-Jun 2007
/Archive Jul-Dec 2007
/Archive Jan-Jun 2008
/Archive Jul-Dec 2008
/Archive Jan-Jun 2009
/Archive Jul-Dec 2009

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Eaton (RAAF officer), 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, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Family history for biographical articles

I've got a bit of a problem on a couple of biographical GARs that I'm doing, Talk:Max-Hellmuth Ostermann/GA1 and Talk:Harold M. McClelland/GA1 that I'd like to get your opinion on. Both editors say that they've hit the limit on any information on family life. The Ostermann article at least mentions a funny incident that he had on the way to his wedding, so there's at least a reference to a family, but the other one completely struck out regarding a family. Now, I've always thought that a "reasonably complete" article ought to have at least some mention of a family, just like his life before and after he did something to make him notable, if appropriate. So should I fail the McClelland GA for not having any references at all to a family or should I pass it on the basis that no available source mentions a family? I'm more inclined to pass the Ostermann article because it does at least make a nod towards a wife, although it would be nice to know if he had any children before he was KIA. You've done a lot of these biographical articles, your thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, tough call when there appears to be nothing available. Funnily enough I never used to bother much with family stuff in my early bios till I found it was considered essential for a rounded article, even for tough ole' military types... There's almost always some small hole in every bio but generally I've always found some family info through personnel files, or newspaper archives (especially obituaries, since they always mention family). One thing I find with newspaper archives is that you don't always get stuff just by searching through Google, sometimes you have to go to the newspaper archive site itself and search for the keywords there. Or there may be newspaper archives on microfische in a physical library. If the guys do know such sites for Germany and the US, I'd advise they try this method if they haven't already. If there's still nothing I tend to agree the Ostermann one can still cut it (just). With the McClellen, at least he has a bit of early life even if nothing about wife/kids but that is quite a hole (though not quite so big in a GA article as it would be in an A-Class one).. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Obits are very hit or miss here in the States, some are available, but many are not unless you physically get into the newspaper's archive. Or want to pay for a death certificate. Thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Honours section

And a happy, healthy and prosperous new year to you, too!
No, I hadn't been following it, but I will now. Thanks for the "heads up". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FACs

You're allowed more than one at time so you didn't have to wait until Scherger finally passed. I've been adding a second once I got to 2-0 for hte past year without drama YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you worked that out pretty quick! I thought I'd seen somewhere that it was only supposed to be one FAC a time but if you reckon it's no problem, I'm sure I can take that as gospel (actually I think I've also seen somewhere that you're not supposed to nom the same article for GA and A simultaneously, but no-ones ever complained about us doing that)... Thanks for above too - cheers and happy new year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the past 12 months almost all of my FAs have taken the whole 4 weeks to find three takers, so I didn't have much of a choice, and I still have a backlog of about 16 FACs anyway. It's rotten when nobody else is interested/active in the topic at all then they don't really come until the last 10 days of the month. I did sometimes have 3 at a time in 2008 but that seems to be no longer acceptable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The GA/A thing is not for the experienced article writers like yourselves. It is advice that we give to those who are new to expanding/writing articles to higher classes. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks MBK! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation

Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Indian military history task force with the Pakistani military history task force to form the new South Asian military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of one of the two defunct task forces, I've transferred your coordinatorship to the new task force; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Your thoughts on a new image for use in the task force banner and userbox, and the creation of Indian and Pakistani working groups under the new South Asian umbrella, would be very welcome (discussion currently taking place here). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WWI Contest reminder

Hi mate I've just noticed that you made some significant WWI-scope contributions (including an ACR passed) but made no submissions yet. Is there anything wrong or you simply didn't manage to do it yet? Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps you know something I don't - apart from a review or two I didn't think I'd done anything 'submittable' this round. Which was the ACR you were talking about? I think my last one just scraped into Round 1... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about an ACR, but you do have a review or two and the elevation of Elwyn King from B to GA. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably the GAN being confused with ACR - anyway, plenty of time for more stuff yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ian Rose! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. George Murray (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Roy Carr - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles I

I've noticed all the work you have done on Charles I of England. I'm currently attempting to get it up to Featured status (or at least good article status). Any suggestions? Oh, what exactly does the Military history project coordination do? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of what I do on the article is simply reverting vandalism but I'd be happy to look it over and comment. I suggest you put it up for peer review (MilHist Peer Review as a for instance, since it's under that project's scope among others) so you may get other perspectives as well as mine... This talks about what MilHist Project Coordinators do... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

References at A class review

Ian, in the article Smedley Butler I saw what you suggested re "References" (as opposed to "General"), and I have a further question. "References" includes inline citations, with specific page numbers, to which Kumioko referred. It is not simply a list of references. I've been thinking it should be merged with the Citations section. I understand the tendency to separate notes and citations (although I don't do it myself), but I don't understand the separation of types of citations based on an arbitrary designation of some of them as "general references" and others as "specific references"....Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I hadn't noticed (or taken in, at least) the page numbers in the items listed under References. I don't see the point of them when the Refs section is just supposed to be the full details of sources you refer to in shorthand, with specific page numbers, under Citations (which the editor is doing). Tks for pointing out, will have another look as I'm not finished the review yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference section does not include the full detail, only those things which he considered to be "general" references, as opposed to specific references. I could not get him to see that this was confusing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit the References entries looked okay to me apart from the page numbers, which should only be in the inline citations, and the lack of publisher location (although this last doesn't worry me too much) and he's now taken care of the first thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning, Thanks again for the review I think the article is a lot better know and I learn a little more each time I go through one of those. Just a heads up I intend to submit it for FA in the next couple weeks once I add a little more content to a couple of the sections (central american service and post retirement mostly), do you have any suggestions of things that should be added changed or modified.

Also, Do you still have the link to the discussion regarding using ribbons in military biographies. Based on your comments at the review I would like to review them and address them at the MILHIST wikiproject talk page for clarification. In my opinion if we allow the ability for this information to be displayed an an article then as a general rule it should be allow to be in an article even at an FA status. If an item cannot be displayed on an article at the highest level then we should not even allow it in WP. To allow something that cannot be on an article at the highest levels simply wastes people time and wastes system resources. Additionally, unless we clarify that articles should or not contain it someone will simply add it again later and potentially cause the article to lose its A class or FA status. As a point of interest I disagree that adding this type of display is image cruft, as it is a part of their military career and uniform. If the determination is made that these cannot be displayed then we might as well not show images of the individual in military uniforms, their military service or the citations for the awards they recieved...In my opinion these ribon displays also help to add context to the Medal of Honor itself (for those who do not know the importance of it especially). I can certainly understand if as an editor you don't like it and choose not to use it in the articles that you edit/create, but I think it should be allowed for those of us that do. I would be ok with making it smaller or defining how it should look on the article, but it should be an option available just like using different reference styles is up to the editor. Just my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fred Birks

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

(Unrelated P.S.: I think you need to think about archiving Jul-Dec 2009 ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I am behind on that, tks for reminding me... ;-) Tks also for link to your helpful (and flattering) message to the newbie! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Migth as well chuck the next one up otherwise you'll have an eternal backlog YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, tks for advice mate - I'm curious though, did you have any particular one in mind as "the next one"...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GA paperwork

Ian, for the sake of the paperwork in the article history, would you be so kind to fill out a GA pass review here for HMS Lion (1910)? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Had to race off, back now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Hi Ian, thanks for your assessment and kind comments on this article. I'm rather surprised with how well it has turned out, and am seriously considering nominating it for A class status in the next few days. Do you think that this is viable, and have I missed anything relating to the wing? My best source is a biography of Caldwell and I'm a bit worried that it's too Caldwell-centric. Any comments you have on the article would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I almost said in the B-Class assessment that I was looking forward to seeing it at GA/A but thought I should be conservative and wait till I read it word-for-word (I didn't need to do that to assess as B). I should be able to get round to looking it over in detail and offering you some further comments in the next few days, as requested, but basically I expect it should be fine for GA/A. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Charles Eaton (RAAF officer).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Smith (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 January 2010 UTC (UTC)

Tks Steve! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

take a look?

Ian, would you mind giving Battle of Winterthur 1799 a look over. It's at ACR and Tom has gone through it, but it needs a few other reviews I suppose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

December Aviation Contest

		Second Place in the December 2009 round of the Aviation Contest
		Belated congratulations! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks Storm, and also for your efforts with scoring and the newsletter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ACR close?

Ian, would you mind closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Germany? To the best of my knowledge you haven't commented, and I've had it listed at the coordinator talk page as needing an uninvolved closer for the past few days. If either you or Eurocopter don't get to it within 12 hours I'm going to to ask Roger or Kirill to close it since it has been sitting for a few days. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Pentland

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Pentland, 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, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:FAC

You might want to check the proposal there. One of the provisions there would restrict you, and me too. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Presume you mean re. concurrent noms and time limit between noms - yep, saw it, just finishing off a GAR before commenting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout the dup row

I just wanted to apologize for the dup row. I didn't see my name so I added it. Didn't mean to get in the way. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob - great debut for you in the revamped contest anyway! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest

Hi Ian Rose! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget to update your submissions page!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have it bookmarked - we do have till end of the month still, don't we...?! Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, but I just wanted to remind you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nhung and Loxton

Thanks, I've responded on teh former YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And the latter. Thanks again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob, well done on both. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Meckiff

Thanks again for reminding me about that habit YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Phillipps

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy Phillipps, 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ACW Task Force question

Hi. Quick question. Just joined the ACW Task Force and I'm hoping to take on a few of the "to do's." Is there someplace that one should make a note if they are working on one of the items on the list? Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome aboard! I don't think we have a formal process for that but it'd probably make sense to edit the To Do list (Requested Articles, Expansion Needed or whichever) and just put something like "(under way -- Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC))" after the relevant article(s)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I was doing things properly. Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oswald Watt

On February 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oswald Watt, 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) 06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done on this passing its ACR and the DYK appearance Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tks Nick -- heh, was it a coup finding that picture at the eleventh hour or what?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was a good find. It's surprising where stuff turns up... Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I spent a fair bit of time isolating the shot of him in company with 1st Wing staff for want of any better portrait, then went to the Mitchell on spec and found two copies of the one in question, in Air Force Australia and Diggers (both by Odgers)! The latter just turned out better in the scanning... While we're at this, pre-emptive congrats on No. 1 Wing's FAC too... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian ...though I still have my fingers crossed for that one! Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Query about Cyril Clowes

Hi Ian. I created a page for Cyril Clowes on 14 Feb 2009, when I realised he had no entry on Wikipedia. Then today I just saw his name in your list of Articles Created. I am a newcomer, (in fact Clowes was my very first created article), so I don't know all the rules, or quite how it all works. Your Clowes page was not on the main space when I first looked there. I apologise if I have gazumped or overwritten anything of yours. Of course if you have more to add to the current article please do so. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, I think you mean 14 Feb 2010.... ;-) Second, that was just a placeholder (I have a few of those), i.e. an article that I planned to create one day. However I haven't got to it yet (obviously!) so you haven't overwritten anything I've done. Thanks for checking, and thanks for taking the time to get it going - it looks like quite a collaborative effort now, judging from the edit history, and very comprehensive - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks Ian. I just read the Peter Brune book and was very surprised Clowes wasn't represented in WP. I guess the more history you read, the more articles are crying out for creation/expansion, and in that context Clowes has not been high priority. Sounds like he was an excellent officer though who deserved a lot better. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

nominations for ACR

Ian, after all the debate at the FA page about "one nomination per time" I've looked all over the ACR requirements and cannot find a similar one. Is there a limit? I have an article that should be closing out soon and I'd like to nominate another one.Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's been a while coming, Ruth. I don't recall seeing a "one ACR at a time only" message anywhere, just one about "no simultaneous ACR and GAN for the same article". However the latter is waved for more experienced editors like you and I, so I doubt that anyone will complain if two of your ACRs overlap either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks, Ian.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Election message

"Sorry I must've missed us determining not to pitch the 12-month term as a referendum item. No-one I recall had any serious objections to it so if we feel we need more debate before going to the wider community for a vote that won't even have an effect until the next election after this one (i.e. in October) then I think we're getting too bureaucratic. While I'm still planning to stand for re-election this round, I'm a lot less sure about going through another election process for a further 6-month term after the March-October one ends - we really should be giving ourselves and the community a chance to determine if this one should be the last 6-month term and we get into 12-month terms from October onwards."

The reason this has not happened yet is because I though it would be wise to wait until we had more than just a suggestion to take to the community on the main page. I do not want to change the election time and term limits until the project members have a chance to weigh in on the matter and offer their two cents about it, but that has not happened yet. If you like this could be the major thrust for us for the next six months, starting as soon as the election ends so that in the fall we can make this a referendum item. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment still stands - we can still hold a referendum during this election to determine what we'll do after this next 6-month tranche, from October onwards, so we don't have to worry about it later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sound off then, so I can get consensus for or against it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems that my mind has been made up for me. Thanks for the input at any rate. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tks for putting the question to the rest of the team, Tom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dallas for A Levels

Well, cobber,

A most excellent editing job. Well done!

I was surprised to find a destroyed balloon among the victories, most especially as it was credited to Hellwig. I thought I had pretty much absorbed that book, but somehow I missed the balloon.

And on the subject of victories...you are going to have to grasp the nettle and make the number of victories stated in the lead match the victory table at the end of the article. You can't let the contradiction slide. Someone evaluating the article for GA, A, FA will call you (us) on it. It's such a basic fact that the contradiction could defeat the nomination(s).

I was sorry to see the facts comparing Dallas's squadrons with Richthofen's and the Storks disappear, but I can't blame you. Even though I know these facts are true, I couldn't find a source to cite for them, and they were secondary anyhow. However, I still wish the leadership portion of this article were still stronger. As an impartial American, I have no stake in the evaluation of Allied aces versus Entente Uberkanones, and I conclude that Dallas was as effective a combat leader as Richthofen or Mannock.

Cheers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tks George. I noticed you dropping the link to Werner for lack of notability but I understand from Newton and Franks that he was an ace with at least 6-7 victories (Dallas was his 6th) so by WP standards he might well deserve an article. That said, I'm not planning to create it myself so I don't mind losing a red link for now.

The "56" is a direct quote from Newton, and the Australian Dictionary of Biography says "in the fifties" so a reviewer couldn't really gainsay those as far as verifiability goes. The table lists almost 60 confirmed and unconfirmed victories so I don't think there's too much risk really. However, to fireproof it I've altered my wording to "over 50" and cited ADB as well as Newton; this gives a decent correlation with the table I think.

I don't remember losing comparison between the Baron's squadron and Dallas', perhaps someone else dropped that. I did leave the comparison with the Baron under Death & Legacy pretty well intact as you'd cited it from Hellwig.

Anyway, tks for all that. When I (co)nom it at ACR, etc, I'm happy to field comments in the first instance (I think one person needs to be first point of contact) but will certainly defer to you if something touches research I don't have, e.g. Hellwig or Golden Eagles, and you can always weigh in at any time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Congratulations, yourself. I would never get an A-Class on my own. I had hopes you would do the wiki-editing that would slide us through, but you went above and beyond that with your proofreading, line editing, and rewriting.

Good on yer, mate!

Have you ever looked at Albert Ball? His is a heart-wrenching tale. He reminds me of so many of the kids that went to Vietnam.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

No worries. Yes, I recall seeing your fine efforts on Ball's article some time ago and thinking it would be good to collaborate on getting that to GA/A/FA. Now that we're progressing nicely in that direction with Dallas I don't see why lightning shouldn't strike twice - I'll put him on my list! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Articles

Congrats on Oswald Watt. A really interesting read I thought. I learned a few things from that article. If you'd like to do me a favour, could you have a look at Howard Knox Ramey? Its a very short article for reasons explained in the intro. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob - I owe Parsecboy one first, yours'll be next. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 did it, so you're in the clear. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, just noticed - well at least it's done! One thing though, even though Ramey didn't have that long a life, I'd hope to see a bit more detail for a GA-class article - is there nothing more available to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you're disappointed. Unfortunately, I am out of fliers. You could review Leif J. Sverdrup though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cripes, that's a big 'un (the bloke and the article) but it's a deal - 'course if you can see your way clear for Roderic Dallas some time before the end of the month, that'd be peachy... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS: How come there is no page on Bull Garing? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Too full of himself by half according to me 'ole dad, so he wasn't high on my list... Should have first a draft of Allan Walters done in the next 24 hours though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

If you have any new articles that are eligible for the WP:FOUR award, please come by and nominate them as they qualify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, need some competition, eh?! Well, I don't think I have any sitting around to nominate at the moment - it just happens the last FA I achieved was for a stub someone else started - but I have one or two originals in my head that might go all the way, never fear... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome back. My concern when you had to drop your WP activities was not that you had to go (any of us might have to) but that you seemed to do so without any notice. Of course there might have been an emergency meaning you couldn't say anything for a time but I would've expected some message to the other coordinators when things had settled down to say that you'd had to withdraw. As it was, no-one appeared any the wiser. I know that if you're able to dedicate some time to WP/MilHist you would be fine as a coordinator but I think you'd need to address the aforementioned point in your nomination this time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If I do decide to run, I will definitely explain that to the WP. I was literally just so busy that I couldn't even get on Wikipedia. Thanks again! Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chiefs of the Air Staff

Ian, Yep I have started research for Ray Funnell, more on James Rowland and David Evans. I'll leave Fisher ect to your experienced hands.

I tried the CAS shot as the one on the Geoff Shepherd seems to have got through the system.

Regards, --Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no prob, go for your life on Funnell and I'll start on Fisher some time soon. I've also researched Rowland (and McNamara). Were you planning to just add to Rowland or essentially rewrite, because I was leaning towards the latter... I've got data on him from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, High Fliers by Stephens/Isaacs, and Going Solo by Stephens (same for McNamara). If you like, though, you could expand Rowland with what you have and then I'll fill in gaps, meanwhile I'll take the lead on expanding McNamara. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I only have stuff from Who's Who, some Eulogy stuff and a couple of pages here and there on James Rowland (once again getting an appropriate phot is proving a challenge)... I will start on David Evans(only a couple of additional things) and Ray Funnell (found some good stuff there). I won't get much time over the comming days to do much work on it I'm afraid. Cheers,--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) PS Any ideas or suggestions are warmly welcomed!--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded a WWII-vintage shot of Rowland that I've known about for a while now, only one on AWM it seems, but his CAF portrait is on my list of requests for GNU free licences from the RAAF... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an old portrait of Newham from the Cowra Guardian of a youthful Jake Newham in 1953. I am unsure if this is able to be used. I assume so since it is pre 1955? I like that one and would prefer it in the info box. Thoughts? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can put it on Commons because it may not be public domain in the US. This gets a bit complicated but I've been through it with the image nazis... Anything you find on AWM that says "copyright expired - public domain" is fine for Commons, no matter what year it was taken or published, because the AWM is saying unequivocally it's PD (the implication being PD worldwide). However this shot is not from the AWM so for it to go on Commons it has to explicitly satisfy US PD rules as well, which are that it must have been PD in its country of origin on 1 January 1996 (that's the PD-1996 template you see on some Commons shots). While this shot of Newham is PD in Australia now because it's pre-1955 (the PD-Australia template), in 1996 it probably wasn't, it probably only became PD in Australia in 2003, fifty years after publishing. However I have seen shots on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) just satisfying the PD-Australia criteria so that should be worth a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd Place - Henry Allingham World War I International Contest (1st edition)

SECOND PLACE

Henry Allingham World War I International Contest

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, mate, and for organising this very stimulating competition! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Les Holden

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Les Holden, 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.

Calmer Waters 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Alexander Pentland, Oswald Watt and Roderic Dallas, promoted to A-Class between January and March 2010, the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject hereby award you the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Well done and thank you for your continued contributions to the project. EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)