User talk:Abraham, B.S./Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for your reviews

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Towner

OK, I think that's it (barring the interminable tweaks when proofreading!) I hope it helps, and thanks for another interesting article. EyeSerenetalk 19:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


1) I'm not looking for a fight - just your opinion. (And I think the table is a GREAT improvement. Well done.)
Do you think the "Service" column adds any value?
(i.e. Doesn't the rank already tell you what the sevice is?)
Interested to read your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the table looks a lot better now, too! It's true that the rank is a good indicator on what service they were in, but I think it just adds that little bit extra. Possibly not all people who visit the page are going to be knowledgable about ranks, so it is going to help them as well. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2) I thought about turning the table into a sortable table. Then I wondered what that would achieve. I concluded: "Nothing."
Do you have an opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On Vice Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) the table is sortable. As the list gets longer, there is perhaps somethign to be said for some sorting being possible, if you know a particular person has held a post, but aren't too sure of the dates, being able to switch to alphabetical order means you're less likley to overlook them as you go through the list (though I suppose you could just do ctrl+F and search the page text...). Sorting on rank (or service) makes it easier if someone wanted to see how many of each service have held the position. Service is perhaps redundant to rank, though listing the service as well is possibley easier if the reader is less familiar with the armed forces, and doesn't take up a huge amount of space (on a side note, has Austrlia done away with marines? in the UK it's possible an RM officer could end up holding an equivalent position, in which case service would be needed to distinguish between an RM lt-gen and an Army lt-gen). I see that on the VCDF page, rank has been separated into it's own field. David Underdown (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks David. I'll have a look at VCDF and make CDF (Aus) consistent with it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I kinda agree with your initial conclusion, Pdf; I don't really think a sortable table will add that much. I suppose it is helpful on some of the points David has outlined, but I just do not see it as being much benefit. However, I do not oppose it enough to kick up a stink if it is added in. The rank was sorted into its own column on the VCDF page as the table was made sortable, and it would not sort properly with the rank there; I think PalawanOz was the one who carried that out. As far as I know, Australia has gone away with marines. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. (Yes, it was PalawanOz.) Regarding Oz Marines: these's an interesting and sometimes amusing discussion here. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

The gong is greatly appreciated; I'm glad I was able to help out. All the best at FAC, and I've watchlisted the review page so I'll help out as I can. Thanks again! EyeSerenetalk 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The World War I fighter ace assessments

Thanks for the suggestions. These five articles were among the earliest I worked upon, and I was amazed they seemed to have never been assessed. At the time, I don't believe I knew yet how to cite references, which leads me to conclude the errant citations probably aren't mine.

I will admit, I thought (off the top of the balding dome) that Heinrich Bongartz might be a B Class. That the remainder stuck at Start Class did not surprise me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome; I just hope they were helpful. I must admit, I was extremely close to assessing Bongartz as B-Class but the only thing that swayed me not to was the fact that the paragraph in the "Early life" section was without a cite. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The Bugle.png The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XL (June 2009)
From the coordinators
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of the Coral Sea
  2. Battle of Vimy Ridge
  3. Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
  4. Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay
  5. Military history of Australia during World War II
  6. Otto Becher
  7. Moltke-class battlecruiser
  8. Yamato-class battleship

New featured lists:

  1. List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)
  2. List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients
  3. List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures)
  4. List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)

New featured pictures:

  1. Governor Davey's [sic] Proclamation to the Aborigines
  2. Test Baker, Operation Crossroads
  3. Tuskegee airmen

New A-Class articles:

  1. Army of the Tennessee
  2. Battle of Bosworth Field
  3. Battle of Corydon
  4. Battle of the Coral Sea
  5. Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)
  6. Helgoland class battleship
  7. Operation Sky Monitor
  8. Rupert Downes
  9. Sd.Kfz. 10
  10. Werner Mölders
Project news
The Academy content drive
  • Introduced in February, The Academy is an online school for new members. This month, we're launching a drive to increase the breadth and depth of its content. If you can help, by writing four to six paragraph articles, please do so! Barnstars galore to be won!
Awards and honours
Editorial: How to prepare an A-Class Review

Perhaps the most important—and, indeed, most respected—aspect of the Military History project is our rigorous A-Class Review (ACR) system, which puts articles through the most robust review outside of WP:FAC. Although reviewing might seem daunting to newcomers, this article will give you an outline of three popular reviewing methods so you can actually start contributing yourself.

  1. General nit-pick - this is one of the easiest - and one of the most common - reviewing styles seen throughout Wikipedia. It is a similar approach to that you would see in proofreading and classroom marking. Basically, it is a general overview of the article, not getting too specific on aspects of the prose. The most common statements include This article could benefit from a light copyedit before going to FAC or You might want to check the endash and emdash placement in the article. It's a style that is incredibly easy to manage, and one that requires little-to-no experience in previous reviewing.
  2. Specialization - it often is the case that those who have been reviewing articles for a long time will move away from the general review towards more specific areas of articles. As an example, Tony usually stays within the realm of prose and copyediting while reviewing Featured Article Candidates, Tom used to focus almost entirely on external links and disambiguations, while others specialize their focus exclusively on copyediting, reference formatting, dashes, punctuation and flow, image licensing, and a host of other areas. This is a review method that is not nearly as time-consuming as other methods, as it allows you to quickly scan an article, spot the things that you work on, and how they need to be fixed.
  3. Sectional - My preferred style of reviewing, this is one of the most informative styles. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most time-consuming and exhaustive styles. Essentially, it involves going through the entire article, section by section, and pointing out every major (and often many of the minor) flaws present within each section. Everything from prose to reference formatting to content. It is a reviewing style that is exhausting, and often takes two or three goes through the article to get everything (sometimes even more), but it gives the article's main contributors two benefits. First, everything is well organized, mostly under section headers like this one, and it often makes finding individual sentences or refs much easier, as they are within that section. Secondly, it points out a lot of the problems from a lot of the areas.

Best of luck, and happy Reviewing! Cam (Chat)

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) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

One you haven't got

Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
For kindly helping me out with the tallies, and help me get things ready for The Bugle at the beginning of this month, I award you this Helping Hand barnstar. (It would normally have been the Chevrons, but you've already got loads of those :)  Roger Davies talk 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Main page FA gig

Well done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was quite a surprise showing up today and finding the article on the main page, though; I had no idea it was going to be there! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The TFA gods smile upon you, as well they should - great stuff...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - congratulations ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)



a) Why is this unnecessary?
b) Isn't it only your opinion that it is unnecessary?
Interested to read your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bryce, but I'd imagine that he removed it because it's clear from the rest of the lead that he served in both World Wars, and also that his participation in WWII was minimal and cut short by his sudden death. EyeSerenetalk 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, EyeSerene; you've basically hit the nail right on the head. The other rational was that by introducing that snippet the article is/was now implying that Wark is notable for his service in the world wars, which is not exactly the case. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you gentlemen. (A more informative edit comment would have made this clearer.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


I've been looking around, and it appears to me that CMF abbreviates "Citizen Military Forces". So far, I haven't been able to find a reliable reference to support "Citizens Military Force". Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. I have checked and looked at a few sources, but both varients are used. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That suggests you have been successful in finding a reliable source that uses "Citizens Military Force". Could you point me at it please? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome. Sorry for not replying here first; I got a little distracted. I told you it was bloody confusing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What's that wonderful quote? "You're not wrong Narelle ... " Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Personally, I think all those commas detract from the visual appearance.
What do you thing of "Enlistment (August 1915) to Western Front (September 1918)", or even "Enlistment to Western Front (August 1915 to September 1918)"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the commas are fine, and are the lessor of two evils over the brackets. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

North Epping murders

Hi, seeking support to keep regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Epping murders. Do you have an opinion on that? Thanks Ajayvius (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Well done on your newest FA! As always, it's been a pleasure working with you ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, EyeSerene, but your contributions were pivital to the article's promotion. It has been excellent working with you. :) Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Airborne VCs

Wotcha! Long time no see. I thought I might have given up Wiki for a while, but no such luck...I find myself dragged back in. I want to write the bios for the airborne troops who won VCs throughout the Second World War, and I've found four so far. And of course, I thought to myself, Who do I know that's brilliant at all this VC lark? And of course your name popped up. So, what are the basic tools I'm going to need to do these articles? I'm particularly interested in which of the various 'VC Winners' books you'd recommend. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm unsure about article structure. I see that in most of yours, you've put the entire citation in and then just cited it. The first I'm doing, John Baskeyfield, earnt the medal posthumously. So does that mean I should do his 'Early Life' and his Second World War service pre-VC - then explain the background to the VC (ie the Battle of Arnhem) and then just give the VC citation in full? Or should I paraphrase the citation as there's nothing apart from the Legacy section to put afterwards? If you have a structure you usually use, that would be really handy. Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cleary

No disrespect taken! It came from my mis-reading of the "retrospective awards" section of Victoria Cross (Australia). Cheers SGGH ping! 11:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

VC allowance

Regarding this edit and: The Australian Government pays a Victoria Cross Allowance to any service person awarded the medal, ...
This phrase suggests Donaldson is eligible for the allowance, and may well be receiving it.
Perhaps a safer statement would be: Under Section 103, Subsection (4), of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Australian Government pays a Victoria Cross Allowance to any service person awarded the medal.? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase was referring to both Kenna and Payne (hence why I changed it), and the cite would only cover them two, so it would have been WP:OR to declare that Donaldson is receiving it without one actually knowing. Re-wording of the section would perhaps better be discussed on the article's talk page, or with Woody; the primary contributor to the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

VC for OZ infobox and 3RR

You are both at 3 reverts now, can you please discuss it on the talkpage instead of through edit summaries? If there is a disagreement, please discuss it on the talkpage and come to a consensus. Thanks, Woody (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody, but I think it has been sorted now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad it has been. I have added the Battalions into the WWII list now, there aren't that many redlinks actually, I filled 4 of them in with one stub I just created: 2/48th Battalion (Australia). Regards, Woody (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol, that was quick! Yeah, I didn't think it would take that much due to the 2/48th. ;-)Thanks, Woody. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Convoy GP55

Hi, I'm thinking of taking this article to FAC within the next week, and am wondering if you have any comments on it? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for this. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Date Links appropriate for "oldest" persons


Please do not remove date links from supercentenarian articles. Since the person is famous mainly because they represent a connection to a time in the past, it is appropriate to link the year, at least.

Personally I think any biography should have a linked date. We are all born and live in the context of our times.Ryoung122 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Please read your message again:

re: Date Links appropriate for "oldest" persons

Hi. Per current MoS, dates should not generally be linked in articles—hence why I delinked this one—so is there anything in the MoS that I missed that advises/allows/recommends the linking of dates in regards to supercentenarians? If not, I think they should follow the consistency set by all of the other biographical articles that do not link dates. Yes, they are primarily notable for reaching quite an age, but it is not based solely on the years they were born or died. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Generally" doesn't mean "exclusively." If there's a reason for it, then exceptions to the "general" rule can be made. Please note that even stories have appeared in the media connecting supers to their birth year, many times.Ryoung122 05:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC follow-up?

Hi there Abraham, any chance you could revisit the FLC for the WWII VCs list? A firm comment either way would be helpful. Thanks, Woody (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will get back over and have another look soon, Woody. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! It has been a while coming but the VC topic is finally fully featured just as the next one is almost there. I have reworded the WWII VCs lead, does it look okay, is there anything more that you would want in it? I have also fixed the issues in the campaign FLC. Again, thanks for the reviews, always appreciated. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You are most welcome. That sounds excellent! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Digger History site

We've sort-of discussed this before, but didn't really come to a conclusion.
I really don't care what the answer is, as long as: 1) there is an answer, and 2) The answer is consistent, logical, justifiable, etc., etc.

[Pause for you to answer "Yes" or "No". If no, please also add an explanation of your answer.]

My question is complicated. It's some sort of some combination of:

  • Is Digger History a reliable source?
  • If it is, why aren't many of the other sites with VC information "reliable sources"?

and a number of other vague and implied factors and questions as well.

You have previously argued that "Digger History provides sources, and other sites don't.", but you may recall from one of our previous conversations that, with-respect-to-information-about-VCs, Digger History is no more referenced than any of the other sites that you have complained are unreferenced.

Now, my desire is 1) consistency and 2) to include ALL sources about VC information.
To be clear, I do not wish to eliminate "Digger History" as a source, or any other site.

However, I know that there are certain other sites with a similar level of referencing that you simply do not tolerate as "reliable".

So, please provide an explanation as to why those other sites are less reliable than Digger History. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be asking two completely different and conflicting things, but I will try to answer it as best I can. On reflection I actually do not believe Digger History would meet the requirements/guidelines of a reliable source, as they would probably come under the scope of an unreferenced "hobby site"; which is the exact same case as many other sites. The objective of Wikipedia is not to provide a multitude of sources or links to information on a particular subject, but to, ultimately, provide reliable, comprehensive information on a subject. It is not whether I "do not tolerate" some sources as reliable, but the Wikipedia guidelines. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy

Thanks for the comments on Michael P. Murphy. I think I took care of most of them if you could take another look. I also added quite a bit of content to the Operation Red Wing section. --Kumioko (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The Bugle.png The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLI (July 2009)
From the coordinators

Don't forget that the next Military history coordinator elections take place in September. You might like to start thinking about whether you are interested in standing. More information to follow in the next edition of The Bugle. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of the holiday season and come back refreshed and raring to go!  Roger Davies talk 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Albert Kesselring
  2. Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
  3. Ba Cut
  4. Battle of Bosworth Field
  5. Battle of Corydon
  6. Edgar Towner
  7. Helgoland class battleship
  8. Maiden Castle, Dorset

New featured lists:

  1. Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
  2. Commandant of the Marine Corps
  3. List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients
  4. List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients
  5. List of African American Medal of Honor recipients
  6. Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

New featured pictures:

  1. Burning of the United States Capitol
  2. Charge of the Light Brigade
  3. Vice Admiral John Duncan Bulkeley, USN

New A-Class articles:

  1. 7th Infantry Division (United States)
  2. British Army during World War I
  3. Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347
  4. Convoy GP55
  5. HMS Endeavour
  6. John Lerew
  7. Kaiser class battleship
  8. List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross
  9. SMS Blücher
Project news
  • We current have an astonishing fifty articles within our scope up for promotion to Good Article and it's a bit backlogged. Can you help with reviewing to speed up the process?
  • The Military history Academy content drive is underway with nearly twenty new essays so far. More contributions are welcome. Just click on the one of the redlinks here and start writing!
  • Are you missing out on an A-Class medal? These are for editors who have significantly contributed to three or more military history A-Class articles promoted since 1 August 2008. Alternatively, perhaps you can help with reviewing? For more information, see here.
  • More eyes would be welcome on the ten articles currently being peer reviewed. It doesn't take long to peer review an article and your perspective is appreciated!
Contest department
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) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary - again

Jeez Bryce, whether the addition of "VC" to a page name is "unnecessary" or not is totally irrelevant.
Also, the fact that it is "inconsistent" is only part of the issue.
The issue is that it is contrary to guidelines. By comparison, the other two are very "small beer".
Further, as I have said to you MANY times, it is only (your) POV that it is "unnecessary".
I really do wish that if you are going to use that word, you provide supporting evidence so that it is not just (your) POV. Because, until such time as you do, your use of it just devalues the word. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Pdf, several editors use the word "unnecessary" in edit summaries, and it is only your POV that disagrees with it. The edits I reverted were not against guidelines; it was other editors who corrected those that were. I'm sorry, but I will continue to use any word I wish, and I would appreciate it if you would cease this harassment against my word choice. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt the reliability of your statements. (Note the use of the word sincere. The use of the word has been chosen very deliberately.)
"several editors use the word "unnecessary" in edit summaries" - Really? Which editors use the word "unnecessary"? Please provide evidence to support your POV.
"The edits I reverted were not against guidelines" - Oh? Really? I'll have another look at them then.
"it was other editors who corrected those that were." - Yes, you are quite correct.
"I'm sorry," - I sincerely doubt that you are at all sorry. So why say so?
"but I will continue to use any word I wish" - Yes, I know you will. Independent of whether it is appropriate, accurate or useful, you will continue to do exactly as you please without justification or consideration of others. Yes, I know that.
'""I would appreciate it if you would cease this harassment against my word choice." - And as I have stated many many times, your use of it just devalues the word. i.e. It ain't gonna happen mate. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to lower myself to a response to this drivel. As I have requested of you before, please to not post on my talk page unless absolutely necessary. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. It is absolutely necessary that you provide evidence to support your POV. Which editors use the word "unnecessary"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, that's pretty much what I'd expect from you. Where's your evidence? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I repeat. Where's your evidence? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this doesn't seem to be achieving anything. pdf, you've made your view known, thrashing it to death isn't gonig to change anything. A fuller summary might be no bad thing, but continued thumping from you isn't going to make it any more likey to happen, and is just going to set 2 useful editors at odds. David Underdown (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About Stan Dallas

I based Dallas's standing on the same evidence I did for just about everyone on the list; I relied on It lists a complete chronological listing of all accredited victories for aces. In Dallas's case, I relied on for the basis of his victory total of 32. If you are going to revise his score, it seems to me that you should be able to cite a source equally detailed and reliable. Georgejdorner (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT aware of Stan Dallas's victory total being 39. I am aware of a source that lists his 32 accredited victories in detail. If you have an equally reputable and detailed listing of 39 victories, reference that when you change his score. However, unsourced material is subject to removal. Georgejdorner (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia

Thank you for indicating the citation needed points, which I'm working through. Would you mind indicating which citations are in improper format, as well? I'm used to academia and really don't know enough about wiki citation styles, but if I know which ones are wrong I can look up the appropriate templates. Thanks for your help. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Derrick: where did he live?

Apparently there is a plaque in a park in Glanville saying that he grew up there. Can you check other sources to see if he did move house to Pt Adelaide and didn't walk 20km back and forth to school everyday. I can't remember the book's name but it was a commissioned book by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, will have a look now. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Nup, Glanville isn't mentioned at all. It seems that Beryl was living in North Adeliade when Derrick was killed, so maybe that has something to do with it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

Can I trouble to update your comments on the ACR page when you get a chance? I am in need of updated feedback to help get the article where it needs to be to pass the ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did stumble across this. The primary/main contributors really should be asked again if they consent to the FAC, though. However, the prose needs a bit of a polish and sweep for MoS compliance, but the structure does seem quite decent. The sources, or presentation anyway, seem a little weird too. I'm not sure it the text has been fully updated following the Commission of Inquiry, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another main page gig!

Time for a takeover! YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Great work ...and you're braver than I am! Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! But both of my "main page gig[s]" have been completely unintentional! Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. My only main page experience also came as a surprise ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


User Jhfris‎ is a sock of a banned user, and had already been indef'd by the time you posted your warning. Just thought you might like to know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Murray VC

I am not sure why you excised the ext link to - it is a hobby site but the page is fairly well referenced for such as that. The quotes from newspapers and the like are dated etc. The info there is undoubtedly pretty accurate, harmless (ie. supportive) and adds a fair bit of useful background. I will restore unless you have some overwhelming cogent reason otherwise. Silent Billy (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean Digger History is a hobby site (and badly done) as was Mike Whatsisname's original VC site. I don't think you can just condemn these out of hand. Silent Billy (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, hobby sites are in violation of the Wikipedia guideline WP:RS, and should not be added to articles. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to stick my nose in, I agree that Digger history and similar websites aren't suitable sources. The types of websites which should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles are explained at Wikipedia:External links. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
But these are both just guidelines aren't they? And as I say the web page (which is what it is albeit part of a "hobby" site) is no worse or better than a typical newspaper or magazine article which would be accepted by you (apparently) in a trice. It's not like the web page has anything objectionable or (apparently) inaccurate. It contains useful additional material (just like Digger History) - especially for our "customers" typically, I would imagine, school children doing projects. I think some people forget contributions to pages are for the benefit of all not just the self satisfaction of those who collect "gold stars". Silent Billy (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
These guidelines are the "rules" of Wikipedia that must be abided by. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that is verifiable to reliable references, not to add vast amounts of external links. While this link appears to contain accurate information, some of the smaller details are actually incorrect. Murray's page is not for my own "self satisfaction"; my goal here is to provide comprehensive and reliable information on particular topics, rather than "collect "gold stars"". Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were not made up by either myself or Nick, so if you wish to discuss policy further I suggest you post a comment or note on one of the appropiate talk pages. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines are guidelines, not "rules". If they were "rules", they would be called Rules, not guidelines.
No, it is not true that they "must be abided by". If you disagree, please provide supporting evidence to reliable references.
For a society to work, it is useful to have "guidelines" and/or "rules", and it is useful for members of the society to adhere to them. Otherwise, the society doesn't work very well. In a society that does work, those who continually do not follow the rules and/or guidelines are made responsible for their actions, and must face the consequences. Often, they find themselves excluded from society, generally by the society members, and in extreme cases, by "the police" - i.e. people "employed" by the society to exclude those who do not adhere. In WP's case, the "police" are the administrators, but the majority of non-compliant behaviour is dealt with by the society members, usually by discussion. (c.f. that which is currently going on here.)
I also disagree that "The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that is verifiable to reliable references". Again, if you disagree, please provide information that is verifiable to reliable references to support your point of view.
Wikipedia has many purposes. Providing "information that is verifiable to reliable references" is one of the mechanisms that WP employs to achieve some of those purposes.
However, I do agree that adding "vast amounts of external links" is not one of those purposes, and I also agree with your statements about WP's policies and guidelines, and I agree with your suggestion.
Yours sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
For FAs, guidelines are usually law, except for some powerful people who nobody dares to oppose and older decayed articles. especially as RS is allegedly only a guideline. Although in general terms, a lot of policies or guidelines are just opportunities for hypocrisy, twisting and multiple standards (not referring to anything on Australian territory) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol! I see you understand exactly what I'm talking about! Pdfpdf (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines basically are the rules of Wikipedia in my view; if one continually disobeys and/or violates the guidelines and policies, they are likely to be warned and eventually blocked. As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states: "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus and apply to all editors." To me, this basically is the definition of "rules". Pdf, your second paragraph seems to contridct the first. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia, that is easy to access for all; please see WP:NOT for things Wikipedia is not. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you reread what I wrote.
In your first two sentences, you restate what I wrote. You do this in a tone that suggests you are saying the opposite to what I wrote. So I am confused by your response.
Regarding the third sentence, (To me, this basically is the definition of "rules".), perhaps you should consult a dictionary? "Rules" and "guidelines" have quite different definitions.
"Pdf, your second paragraph seems to contridct the first." - There is no contradiction; suggest you read it again.
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia, that is easy to access for all" a) Supporting reference please. b) You now have stated two "The purpose". By definition, there can only be one "The purpose". (As Mark Knopfler sang: "Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong.") Which is "The purpose"? And please provide a supporting reference.
"please see WP:NOT for things Wikipedia is not." - Why are you suggesting I do that? I'm afraid I don't understand.
Pdfpdf (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What I wrote is quite different from what you wrote. I did not say thay had the same definitions, nor meant the same thing, just that that definition was pretty much the same as what "rules" would be. I have read it, and there does seem to be a contradiction. What I have written is the same, just the second is expanded upon. Now, this is getting completely off topic and I see little, or no, benefit in continuing this strand of conversation. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I have read through the Ext Link guidelines and I am unable to see which criterion you are basing your ruling on except avoidance of sites which "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material". Personal sites should be "avoided" but I can't see where this is mandatory. If you are going to be consistent then you should perhaps hunt out all the external links to the Digger History site and expunge which would be a shame in fact. I'd also be interested to know what information on the page in question is "inaccurate". I note that the article leans heavily on material from Franki and Slatyer which despite the book's imprint appears to have been privately published (ie. Kangaroo Press has not been a registered business in the 21st century) and by their own admission it in turn relies on material sourced from the family. (Likewise articles on places often reference local histories which are dubious in the extreme). I am sorry but I can't see how this is intrinsically different from a "personal website". I do of course acknowledge the bona fides of Frank and Slatyer and do not wish to denigrate their scholarship I am just making a point. Mike Chapman's Victoria Cross Reference was a personal project when it kicked off and remained that more or less but his material was migrated here without much argument. is a personal site and gets cited all over the place here but of course it's English so that's alright then. In regard to merit awards I invite you to consider that even Scouts have more or less given up the practice of festooning badges on their sleeves (although Cubs still do) and rely on the "green book" to record their achievements privily without ostentation. Silent Billy (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Mate, as I have stated above, these are not my policies or guidelines, I do not make them up, they are Wikipedia's. To tell you the truth, I resent your seeming view that I splash my "gold stars" all over Wikipedia; I am not the only editor to do this, and this is limited to my user space, as it is with the others. I was in Scouts, and know a few people who still are, and I know that Scouts are still awarded merit badges and attach them to their uniform. My iser space is like my "green book"; it is more for me than others, I do not force or invite people to look at my user space for what is there. However, this is quite off the topic. As I stated above, if you wish to discuss policy further, I would recommend you take it to one of the relevant talk pages. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to improve yourself!


As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Questions

G'day Bryce, see the admin position is being a bit of a challege dealing with certain individuals and opinions. Tough gig if you ask me.

Question: I am looking at two articles I want to create and I have a prob.

(a) Battle of Uijongbu and Battle of Uijeongbu. They relate to the same place and Korean Portal requests that battles be named after the new names listed for the towns. Problem is they are both fought in 1950. Do I create seconbd battle as Second Battle of Uijeongbu (1950) or Second Battle of Uijongbu (1950)?

(b) Same for George Edwin Patey, there are two known Royal Navy Admirals with the same name at different periods. How do you distinguish between them

Any help appreciated. I started to create George Edwin Patey and was referencing awards and almost ready to upload and my computer crashed and I lost the webpage. Teach me for not doing a draft. Hope studies are going well. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah been good. I have been busy creating articles relating to Battles of the Korean War involving Australia. Thanks for your advice, will start doing drafts, see taught myself a lesson. If you need any muscle in ur discussions with hot heads I am available, lol. Let me know if you need any help with other articles as I am getting better with practise. Im not a B article virgin anymore. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rear Admirals Commanding HM Australian Fleet

I thought you may be interested that I have just created the article George Edwin Patey. I need access to the Times obituary in 5 Feb 1935 ed. to flesh out more. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Again thought you may be interested in Arthur Cavenagh Leveson. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed article to Arthur Leveson as suggested. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Have expanded William Christopher Pakenham as well. Hope to have Albert Addison and Thomas Wardle up asap. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created article on Thomas Erskine Wardle. I have added his middle name due to another Royal Navy Admiral having the name Thomas Wardle. Newm30 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The machine has been at it again creating Albert Addison. Will take a well earned break. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


I see you've "found" another low profile 3*. Good stuff!
Is there some sort of mechanism for having a common place where information about him (and other "interesting" people) can be accumulated to assist in construction of an article/articles?
If not, what do you think of the general idea of having a "well-known place" where editors with an interest in (Oz) MilHist can collaboratively accumulate information?
If you think it's a good idea, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on a good way to do it.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The typical method for editors accumulating information is to do something much the same as you and I have in the past; to place it in user space. It is probably best to continue to use this method, rather than create, basically, a communal sandbox, as the "common place" is highly likely to become stagnant and to go into disuse. If anything, perhaps ask other users for information or collaborations to contribute to articles, but I think it is probably best to limit this to user space prior to launching into the main space. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

|B;amey tags

I appreciate why you're doing it, but rather than tag all of them, most of the decorations are already referenced in the article proper, so if you feel they need to be referenced in this section too, you could at least add the references that already exist. David Underdown (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Will review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An Award!

Wiki medal.jpg The Featured Article Medal
For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

Hi, you participated in the previous FLC for this article. Can you make sure your issues are resolved and comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive3? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Will have a look. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

SMS Nassau

Hi, Abraham. I added the two citations you requested at the GA review for SMS Nassau. Would you take another look at the article? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)