User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2015

Archive Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009

nested parameter

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to inform you that the |nested= is not anymore supported by any template. Templates are automatically nested when inside {{WPBS}}. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wood 2006

Howdy! (Happy New Year!) It's entirely possible (even likely) that I'm missing something, but ...
In this edit you added a series of references to "Wood 2006". However, I can't find a definition of the publication you're referring to.
"Help!" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

James Whiteside McCay

Politics or Warfare? Which is he most known for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that today he is best known for warfare. Even as a politician he is mostly remembered for his stint as Minister for Defence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Request for Reference to Floyd L. Parks Article

Your request for a reference to the change regarding Floyd Park's First Allied Airborne Army appointment under Brereton and his subsequent succession as commander of the US First Airborne Army is found in reference 3, in the Eisenhower library synopsis of Parks' papers which lists the following timeline: 1944-45 Chief of Staff, First Allied Airborne Army [under L. Brereton] 1945, May-Oct. Commander, First Airborne Army

The First Allied Airborne Army was disbanded on 20 May 1945 per the Wikipedia article by the same name. The remaining American units were renamed the First Airborne Army and took over command of the American Zone of Occupation in Berlin according to this article.

These facts are also consistent with a less authorative entry in the military.com discussion forum http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/828197221/m/4030026832001 This entry states: "First Allied Airborne Army's former commander, Lt. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, briefly retained command of its U.S. component, First Airborne Army, until he was relieved and reassigned later in May 1945. Gen. Brereton was succeeded by his Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Floyd L. Parks, who served as Commander, First Airborne Army from May until October, 1945, and concurrently as Commander, U.S.Sector and Military Governor, Berlin, from July until October, 1945. First Airborne Army was inactivated and disbanded in December 1945."

I hope this helps. Thanks for your interest and contributions. Hamleteer (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment and the pic!

Hello Hawkeye7, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Africa (Petrarch)

I have been working hard to improve this article. I hope to get it to the quality of a Good Article. I think you rated this article back as Revision as of 20:19, 5 January 2009. Could you take a look at it again as I have made major improvements to it lately. If you see additional improvements I can make, please give me some input. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also added some battle information in each of the books of the epic poem between Scipio and Hannibal and the Carthaginians. Do you see other ideas I could do to get it potentially to a Good Article? Does it warrent a review of Class in the Military history Wikiproject? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All I did was classify the article as B class, which it is. I'm no expert on Medieval poetry I'm afraid. If you feel that it is ready, you should nominate it as a Good Article. Some comments:

• "Scholar Aldo S. Bernardo says in his book Petrarch, Scipio, and the Africa of earlier scholars criticizisms" There should be an apostrophe after "scholars" and "criticizisms" is I think a misspelling. More importantly though, who were these scholars and what were their criticisms?
• Is "Charthaginians" a misspelling?
• "night in shining armor" should "knight".
• "inportance' should be "importance"?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, most helpful.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the scholars Bernardo (1962 book) is referring to is the 1954 books of Tillyard and Toffanin. Its now fully explained in Africa_(Petrarch)#Reviews. Thanks for hint.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In your B-Class rating in the Military history WikiProject rating of Talk:Africa (Petrarch) it shows "Referencing and citation: criterion not met" and " Structure: criterion not met". Any suggestions on how I might be able to improve this? BTW, submitted for Good Article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See conversation of Wikipedia:Help desk#Template rating box incorrect. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally you list an article for reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and I go and re-assess it. Re-assessed as B class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Didn't understand procedure. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations for the Admiralty Islands campaign passing its FAC - it's a great bit of work, and does justice to this interesting campaign. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

I noticed you are working on this article. I have done my family genealogy and have come to the conclusion that I was named after the hero of the time - Douglas MacArthur. The reason I believe this is that there are no Douglass in the family, so the name came from somewhere else and I believe it to be the hero of the time. My birthday is January 4, 1945. This is the time when Douglas MacArthur was at the height of his career and there was a lot of news of his activities. My great grandfather John Caldwell was born with the given name "George Washington" because, as the article I wrote points out, he was born on the anniversary of our national independence - July 4th. The custom of naming family members after heros apparently has been happening for some time. John Caldwell (a.k.a. "George Washington") would be my father's grandfather, so for him to name me after the hero of the time (Douglas MacArthur) seems logical to me. Sorry to have bored you with my family genealogy.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:48, 22 February 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) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alboin

Thanks for the assessment Hawkeye. I must admit I was a bit of a shock to learn that the grammar was so bad it couldn't reach B standards, and a bit frustrating to, as it is the only aspect of the article where my chances to better the article on my own are limited. You've suggested finding a copyeditor: I was hoping that maybe you could offer some suggestion where to find one. Unfortunately, passing it through a peer review was not very helpful. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee thanks. I've had a go at grammar checking it myself. Go back over it again to make sure that I have not messed something up. Mostly it involves moving objects closer to the verb, and some stylistic changes. Verb/object problems are endemic in English, becuse the language lacks a rigorous case structure. For example: The Lombards faced difficulties at Opitergium (Oderzo), which Alboin decided to avoid leaves the reader uncertain as to whether Alboin decided to avoid the town or the difficulties. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Hawkeye, that was really nice. I'll follow your advice now and try to read carefully through the text to make it more readable and less confusing. Again, let me thank you for your work. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker

Your absolutely right, I am in the process of building up the MOh related articles and this is currently one of the better ones. I am probably going to follow it through to FA if you don't object. I have one FA pending already fro Smedley Butler but once thats done this one may be next depending on how long it takes to make it through A class review. If you are interested I have essentially gone through and catalogued all the MOH related articles here. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your list of MOH related articles. I thought you were aiming to create the missing pages and bring everything to a B rather than pushing the articles that had already been written along. If it passes A-class and Smedley Butler is still in the queue I will nominate it. I had thought that it was too short for a FA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault if I wasn't clear. I started with the lists cause that seemed like the logical place to start. There were still a lot of articles that needed to be created and a lot of the articles needed work. I started filling in the lists and building them up and at the same time I built up the articles using a combination of manual entry and AWB. Your right about your statement that I am building up articles to B class but I am trying to work on a rolling concept, as I get one to B I get another to GA and so on so from this point out I will be trying to keep them rolling through. Obviously, it would be impossible for me to do them all myself and I don't try. Some articles are easier to develope than others and some are more popular than others. The Douglas Macarthur article is a good example. I had intended to work on it but by the time I got the refs you and a couple other editors had already begun a massive overhaul of the article, so I moved to other articles. No harm no foul. In the end WP wins. As it is know, almost all of the currently existing lists are FLC's (the next will be hispanic recipients and the spanam war). I hope this clarifies and again thanks for all the effort you are putting into Dougs article its looking great. Also, you might be right about it being a little short for FA, but there are others that are short also so I personally don't think thats a show stopper. Just my opinon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed all the dates on this article to dd mmm yyyy format based on standard military format and I think that is incorrect. I have learned in previous reviews and comments from others that is true for British subjects but the mmm dd, yyyy is the standard date schema for American date formatting and typically the American military uses the format of yyyy-mm-dd, which can be confusing to some. I'm not going to change it because personally, I don't care which date format is used as long as its consistent and meaningful to the readers so its fine with me but I wanted to let you know in case it comes up.--Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is consistent now. At the Hood at least, we always wrote dates dd mmm yyyy. It seems to have been that way for a long time, as it was that way during World War II. The US Army called mm dd, yyyy "Polish form" which confused me because they don't use it in Poland. However, I trip over every time I have to read "March of 30th" instead of "30th of March." My understanding is that military form is mandated for MILHIST articles. See WP:NATOSTYLE Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems here, I just wanted to mention it. Like I said I have no preference. Here is a |link to the MOS reference that was thrown at me a few times before stating either is appropriate but that usually Month day, year is used, in case it comes up. I'm not trying to advocate for you to change it, as far as I am concerned the data is sound the prose is solid, the story is being told in an appropriate and concise manner and if someone wants to get bent out of shape over the formatting of dates then let them...be happy. My interests has always been more about telling the story and ensuring that the articles are credible than on the WP desired formatting. Cheers and good work again on the articles you have been working on. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought your objective might have been to create a Featured Topic around the MOH, and you wanted it consistent for that. There's rather a lot of MOH winners though! I thought my project of writing up the commanders in SWPA was large. All the best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You figured me out and your right. I am starting with the lists. Once I am done with those I will submit them as a topic. Still got a while till that happens though, still about 1000 needing articles. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edit, which is fine since I understand your reasoning but I agree with the review that we need to clarify why he was "reduced" to illustrate if it was punitive or not since typically the reader would assume its because he did something wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Walter Farenholt

Thank you for alerting me about the Spanish-American War section of Oscar Walter Farenholt. It made NO sense at all, haha. (I don't know what I was thinking) I believe I fixed the problem. Thanks Again and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Good job on the work you did on this article. It looks tons better. I woudl dare say that it meets B class currently and I hope you intend to submit it for GA review in the near future. I think with the work you have done this article is getting close to being in FA territory. --Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the idea. It falls short of a B only because of the Korean War section, which I have not overhauled yet. Once it is done, I shall submit it for a B rating. Once that is done, I will nominate it for a GA review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats awesome. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ming

G'day mate. I don't why particularly, but feel some vague urge to get Morshead's article to at least GA/A standard, perhaps FA. Did you have any plans for it? I mean I've still got plenty of RAAF articles on the backburner so you might well get to improving it further before I do in any case, but if it's in your immediate sights I won't bother putting it on my list (I said that about Cyril Clowes as well and someone else got to it before me anyway...) ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Ming is not in my immediate sights. I'd rather see it taken to A/FA. I know you can do it, so go for it! Cyril Clowes still needs even more work. It is only a C. And as it stands, it reads as though Blamey relieved him for cause rather than being evacuated after two bad attacks of Malaria. But someone is working on it apparently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ta. Actually, re-reading Morshead now, it has a pretty reasonable level of detail compared to a lot of other GA/A-Class articles I've reviewed. I can see the lead needs fleshing out and the legacy section is probably missing a few things but, assuming the basic thrust of the article is sound, is there anywhere in particular you think it needs work? Further to that, are there any significant refs you know of that aren't already used/listed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is missing some refs. It would also be nice to expand the Tobruk and El Alamein sections. Ideally, the article should explain why Ming was a great general. The Great War section could also stand expansion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Shock

I am quite shocked that there hasn't been so much as a drive by comment on the Kenneth Walker article yet. Its a little disappointing that it takes so long for the first review. --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on

You're missing D. Davidson. My Dec. 23, 2007 edit has a list of major and brigadier generals (commented out because there's one too many of the latter). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

you mean Donald Angus Davison? I have his record here.. he was promoted to BG on 16 April 1942 but I can't see any promotion to MG. So I filed him with the BGs. Now I'm one MG short and two BGs over... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Strike Beukema. I'm now only one over... If Davison was a MG then it would be right... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I have the numbers right at least... Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

		Honorary Maverick
		As former commander, "Maverick06", of Bravo Troop, 1st Squadron, 6th US Cavalry, and Maverick Emeritus, I hereby bestow upon you the Order of the Honorary Maverick for your outstanding contributions to The class the stars fell on. Many thanks to furthering the history of the most stellar class of my alma mater...

Grammatical context in MacArthur's page

I noticed that the "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines, and across the United States streets, public works, children and even a dance step were named after him." sentence at the Douglas MacArthur page, could be better put as "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines. Across the United States streets, public works, and children were named after him. Even a dance step was named after him." given that "were" is incompatible with the dance moves context in the sentence. Also you could phrase it more precisely with a period after "MacArthur was enormously popular with the American public, even after his defeat in the Philippines" starting a seperate sentence to bring to light everything named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciousk (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Truman FAR

I was wondering if you could work on two specific parts of this, the presidential rankings and desegregation parts. I think you'd do a better job than I on those. Right now I'm concentrating on the parts that are missing refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It appears you worked the historical ranking part but put your "done' comment under the desegregation part. I think the desegregation is the only FAR item left. Would you care to take a stab at it or shall I? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. The "Legacy" section is still missing references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the three "citation needed" you put in. Anything else left? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much. I have added some more citation required tags for you, and added a ref myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the new set. Well over half the text in this is refs ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not unusual for such an article. Looks like you have salvaged the article. My experience was that it takes nearly as long to go through an article adding references as to write it in the first place. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks to you too. Yea, I know about refs, FAs, FLs, etc. See my about page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The battle of Taejon

We could use you over in Taejon. :-) • Ling.Nut 08:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, never mind. I'm switching to Full Oppose. Thanks...• Ling.Nut 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 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) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Chauvel

Good! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Moved comments". Moved them where? Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Into the Featured Article Candidate page. I have transcluded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a bit confused. Why is the "discussion" in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel/archive1 rather than Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Chauvel? Obviously, I don't understand the system. Rather than bore everyone else to tears, perhaps put a link to the reason on my talk page? Cheers Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the system. All FAC discussions are that way nowadays. The page was generated automatically by the FAC process. Somewhere along the line TPTB decided to automatically create the discussion pages with an archive number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. (Or at least, I think see.) Again, thank you for sharing your knowledge. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(And while we're on that page), I assume the issues raised in Jan 2008 have been addressed? Perhaps a comment saying this could be added? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Done well! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "In 1919, Chauvel was appointed Inspector General, the Army's most senior post." Wasn't "Chief of the General Staff" the most senior post? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Errrrrr. ??? Or, at least, some sort of elaboration, please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of "no" requires elaboration? The Inspector General was the Army's most senior officer. I have added a bit about the post, as it doesn't have an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of "no" requires elaboration? - All parts of it. It may well be a fact, but it conveys no information.

The Inspector General was the Army's most senior officer. - So you have already said. But it conveys no information.

I have added a bit about the post - Great! Now that does convey information. That is indeed the sort of eloboration I was hoping for. Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

IG vs COGS?

On further thought, I guess I don't understand why the IG post was senior to COGS. If COGS wasn't the senior role, then what was the role that COGS played? Can you help me, or at least point me at some relevant references? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In peacetime, the IG reported on the state of the Army while the CGS ran the show. The idea was that in wartime, the IG would become CinC and the CGS his chief of staff. See Wood for details. In 1914, the IG, Brigadier General William Bridges, became GOC AIF and commanded the expeditionary force, while the CGS, Colonel Gordon Legge organised the AMF at home. By 1942 the post of IG was discontinued in 1940 but in 1942 Blamey became CinC and the CGS, Lieutenant General Vernon Sturdee became his chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

For some odd reason this was moved to FARC. Pls go check it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hugh John Casey

The article Hugh John Casey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugh John Casey for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Vernon Sturdee, Harry Chauvel and Douglas MacArthur; promoted to A-Class between January and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. -MBK004 03:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)