User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2011

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! Bzuk (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thanks for the award!XavierGreen (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for RAAF Command

On 1 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RAAF Command, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a divided wartime control system forced the leader of RAAF Command, Air Vice Marshal Bill Bostock, to serve two masters, one for operational tasking and another for supplies and equipment? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 08:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

(Facile attempt at humour)

117,316 characters on your talk page in the period Jul-Dec 2010! Is there a barnstar for that?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you to mate! Yes, six figures surprised me a bit too -- didn't know I was so popular...(?!?) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It must be something to do with your good looks, charm, and sparkling personality ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! Cheers, Kirk (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military historian of the Year 2010

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that, Kirill! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McLachlan's DFC

Hi Ian. I was just having a browse around the Australian War Memorial website when I came across Group Captain Charles William Pearce CBE, DFC. It appears that Pearce was awarded his Distinguished Flying Cross, as promogulated in the London Gazette, on 30 July 1940 [1][2]; obviously well before McLachlan. However, I'm not sure if Pearce was a fighter pilot per se, but it is something to look into in which case McLachlan may not be the first RAAF fighter pilot to be decorated in the Second World War. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate -- it's okay, Pearce must've been a maritime patrol guy (Sunderlands) if he was in 10SQN. I think this is a pretty safe bet as 3SQN was the first (and for a while only) RAAF fighter squadron operating in the war. There were a fair few Aussie fighter pilots in Britain but as far as I can make out they were all serving in the RAF. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good then; just thought I would let you know in case. :) Yes, the only Australians I know to have operated earlier in the war over Europe were all in the RAF; many of which appear to have initially served in the RAAF in the '30s and granted a short service commission in the RAF. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we've both written about them haven't we -- Clisby, Edwards, etc... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Peter Turnbull (RAAF officer)

On 13 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Turnbull (RAAF officer), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that RAAF flying ace Peter Turnbull (pictured) was fired on by his own anti-aircraft gunners as he brought his Kittyhawk fighters in to land at Port Moresby, New Guinea, in March 1942? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Axis subs off Australia

Hi Ian, I hope you don't mind me effectively reverting this edit. I'm being pedantic, but the only German sub to operate off Australia was German submarine U-862 in December 1944 and January 1945, which was obviously well after Charlesworth moved on. There's a bit of mythology about this sub (for instance, that crew from it landed in NZ to steal milk!) and some otherwise sensible books uncritically accept false sightings of submarines (and sinkings of these subs) off the east coast as being genuine, so I'm pedantic about this ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, was about to discuss on your page...! Don't worry about being pedantic, I'm that way myself, the prob is that Odgers uses the term "enemy" when he talks about lack of sub activity, not "Japanese". I don't doubt you're correct, but we'd really need to use another source to narrow it down to what you want to say. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - David Stevens rather happily uses the exact same quote but specifies that it applied to Japanese subs (which I think is also reasonably clear from Odgers given his narrative of Japanese attacks up to that point, but a direct reference is always much better!). Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, I knew you'd have something... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for ya

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me laugh out loud when I read your edit summary at Italian monitor Alfredo Cappellini. Keep up the good (and good-humoured) work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate -- you too... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Bzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

452 Sqn?

Hi Ian, An IP editor added a claim to the RAAF Base Darwin article that seems to indicate that the air traffic control detachment from No. 44 Wing at Darwin has been redesignated 452 Squadron. No source was provided a Google search doesn't turn up anything so I've reverted it. Have you heard anything about this? Given the frequency with which the RAAF is reviving old WW2 squadrons for intelligence-type units its certainly possible. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sausage I'm afraid. Be interesting if they did do it, I don't recall old EATS squadrons ever being reactivated... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. 460 and 462 Squadrons have been re-raised in recent years as non-flying units (for photo intelligence and mysterious-sounding information security tasks respectively) so this would fit in with a trend. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, there you go -- hadn't spotted them on the RAAF web site but then I guess you'd need to have an idea what you were looking for... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ball...again

The "vague" portion of my memory prodded me to re-read the Ball article again, after all, I did promise you I would...didn't I? I even poked about in Edit history, investigating the "citations needed" claims. Darned if I can recall why they are there, but deletion of those small fragments would not affect article quality. The only fact missing that I can remember is, Ball was one of the first Boy Scouts, and had an honor guard of scouts at his funeral.

So, are you going for an FA or GA with this?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I've had another look and I know why I was holding back on this. Apart from any "citation needed" tags, my source concerns are (as usual) TheAerodrome, and also Colonel Frank Seeley School. These might scrape by in GA but I doubt either would pass muster at MilHist ACR or FAC. So be great if the info they're backing up could be verified elsewhere but I exhausted the sources in the Mitchell Library, which concentrates on Australian history, not British. I think there's at least one dedicated modern biography of the guy out there we haven't utilised yet. Apart from that I'd like to integrate the "Other awards and honours" info into the text itself, which I've always done in the past (I can do that soon, at least). Any thoughts on other sources to replace TheAerodrome and Frank Seeley claims? I'll try and find out about the other bio I'm thinking of, I may also have some notes from Captain Ball VC: The Career of Flight Commander Ball VC DSO by Walter Alwyn Briscoe and H. Russell Stannard, which I did find in the Mitchell, but I know it didn't back up all the Aerodrome and Seeley claims. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, my good fellow,

Luckily, I came over to post that note about Taplin. Somehow, I had missed your above reply.

Now that I am aware of your concerns, I will cogitate on the problem(s) and see what I can find to address the issues. Only one thing puzzles me, and that is the reference to Frank Seeley's School; I don't see it in the article. Ball trained at the Ruffy-Bauman School in any case.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, just to clarify, the article doesn't say he went to Frank Seeley School, but for whatever reason a few claims about his life cite a site (!) called Frank Seeley School, and I couldn't find those things in more reliable sources. Honestly, we've invested so much effort in this article, it looks good and has plenty of detail and images, if we can't otherwise source things that cite TheAerodrome and Frank Seeley then I'm tempted to just drop that data and tidy up around it so we can move on(ward and upward, to GA/A/FA)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers, found out about Frank Seeley School for myself right after I messaged. (Frank Seeley School is a school local to Ball's home; he probably attended it.) There it was in Edit View. I didn't recognize it because that was not part of my original citation; some improver of citations must have dredged it up. When I follow the link to the present source, I discover a cleaner and more thorough version of the source article I originally used. Its source is a local historical magazine's reprint from a now defunct neighborhood magazine. Will the fact that it has been vetted by local historians make it acceptable to the Assessment Czars? Probably not.

As for the Aerodrome site...I have used it in my daily Wikipedia writings for over two years, to jump-start the creation of hundreds of WP articles. Because of objections concerning its reliability, I constantly cross-check its facts against the written sources I find. I doubt I have found so many as ten Aerodrome factual errors in that time span; I wish I could say the same about some of the "reliable" books I have cited. As I learned while working Military Intelligence, the accuracy of information is more important than the pedigree of its source...but that's not true in Wikipedia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am ordering biographies from interlibrary loan on Ball, with an eye of giving the text one last working over; in the process, I intend to standardize cites for the Bowyer text on the latest edition. I want to supply you with citations that the Assessors will accept without quibbling. Given the crudity of my citing skills, you may want await my completion before you begin editing. I estimate that I should be done in about a month.

Whilst I await the arrival of the books, I intend to analyze the article with an eye toward spotting flaws.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard news. For the first time ever, my local library was unable to get me my books via interlibrary loan. That means I cannot honor my commitment to you concerning Albert Ball. Dammit!

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you tried...! What were they? Perhaps I can find them via similar means here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms"
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 21, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 21, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lerew (1912–1996) was an officer and pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during World War II, and later a senior manager in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). As commander of No. 24 Squadron, he became famous in Air Force history for his irreverent response to orders by RAAF Headquarters during the 1942 Battle of Rabaul. After being directed to assist in repelling the invading Japanese fleet with his one serviceable bomber, and to keep his bombed airfield "open", Lerew signalled headquarters with the ancient Latin phrase used by gladiators honouring their Emperor: "Morituri vos salutamus" ("We who are about to die salute you"). He also defied an order to abandon his staff in Rabaul. In February 1942, Lerew led a raid on enemy shipping in New Guinea; he was shot down but evaded capture, returning to safety nine days after being reported missing. Awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, he later commanded the RAAF's first flying safety directorate. After leaving the Air Force in 1946 as a Group Captain, he joined the newly formed ICAO in Canada. He was responsible for administrative and technical reforms, and rose to Chief of Flight Branch. Retiring in 1972, he travelled extensively before settling in Vancouver. (more...)

Nice work Ian. FYI, it took only 10 seconds for the first vandal to hit the article, which I'd like to think is some kind of record! (things have been pretty quiet since). Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, busy day but I figured I could rely on you to hold the fort! Yes, that must've been quick this morning but it does look quiet since then -- Lerew's a bit more esoteric than say Unification of Germany which I watchlisted when I wasn't so busy but soon lost track of there were so many edits... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed it because I'm off work sick today. It seems that you've managed to avoid the major vandalism that's been hitting TFAs and articles linked from them recently (see: WP:AN#Excessive vandalism campaign on Today's featured articles). Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we're lucky. ;-) BTW, get well soon...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the article has received a (low quality) edit from Jimbo Wales: [3] Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah I just noticed -- the first time Jimbo's edited one of "my" articles and I end up reverting it.. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while you're here, want to give me a reality check on the lower-case ranks thing below? This was a drive-by change that I reverted because as far as I'm concerned there's been consensus (referred to in the quoted MOS section) reached across numerous reviews of such articles that it should be up to the main editor, so long as it's consistent, and I find it more straightforward to capitalise in all cases -- ranks are a bit more esoteric than terms like "judge", and with the plethora of positions around like "flight commander" and "wing leader" it's a further justification for capitalising ranks to keep things clear. Be interested in your thoughts though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lamason

Hi there, looking for a little help please if you are interested. For a long while off and on I have been working on the Phil Lamason article. I think it's in pretty good shape, but I really need a fresh set of eyes to go over it and expand the introduction. I am far too close to the article and need that second opinion to proof read before I submit it for FA review. Let me know if you are interested. BTW, great work on the John Lerew article. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you. I'll have a closer look in the next week or so but at first glance it looks like an interesting article. In the meantime, yes you'd need to expand the lead to two or three paras. I think it'd also look better if the key gallery pictures were distributed throughout the article rather than in one spot at the end -- you might have to lose some but I think you could afford to. Also not sure if the table of POWs' nationalities in really needed. However there looks to be a decent amount of detail and it seems well referenced -- worth pursuing FA in the future I think. Suggest MilHist A-Class Review first, as that will also help iron out any issues before FAC. Anyway, like I say, will have another look in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback and future help, it is appreciated. Spy007au (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started expanding the lead section here, when you get time to read it. Thanks again, Spy007au (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. I read the new lead at the link above and started a talk page for it with my comments, but I'll repeat then here anyway: this is a good detailed lead now and probably enough detail... ;-) You perhaps want to trim the second and third paras a little bit, say leaving out refs to other people like his navigator (that level of detail is better for the main body). Then to fill out things you should add a sentence or two about his post-war life to the third para.

Further, "popular culture" sections are frowned upon at FAC -- best integrate relevant stuff in to the later life section (actually not sure you need mention the first item at all if it doesn't specifically mention the guy, unlike the second which includes an interview with him). Finally, check that your "see also" section doesn't repeat things already linked to in the main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all your feedback and critique. Have made most of the changes you have suggested so I look forward to your proof reading/copy editing. Thanks again, Spy007au (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks for taking it on board. Probably simplest if I just copyedit now; I'll try to be clear about what I'm doing in my edit summaries but if something doesn't make sense, just ask. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at infobox, lead, and first main section; will see about rest tomorrow or the next day. Looks pretty good so far but, per edit summary, be good to get a bit more on what he did in air force at home before he posted to Europe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been going over all my research material and books the past couple of days, but information on Lamason before he went to England with the RAF is very limited (nearly nothing). Understandably, most of the articles and books concentrate on what he did at Buchenwald, and to a lesser extent, what he did afterwards. I'll keep researching and if I find anything relevant, will add it to the article. In the meantime, I really appreciate your help to date. Spy007au (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case for ranks when not part of a title

Ian, I note your revert of my edit placing ranks in the lower case in the article John Lerew. Clearly my edit was in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, and so I've re-instated it. Your point that dozens of other articles (some of them GA or FA) suffer from the same error is not an encouraging one, and a quick survey of similar articles confirms that a problem does exist - some (but not all) articles about Australian aviators use capitals for ranks regardless of whether they are part of a title or not. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a big deal, but I think that Shem's reading of WP:MOS is correct in this edit. I tend to be a bit random with my capitalisations though, so I'm no expert on the matter! (to my mind the most important thing is that capitalisation usage is consistent through each individual article). 'official history' should also not be capitalised here, as it isn't in the title of the series and isn't used by the AWM. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, certainly not a big deal, but better right than wrong in the long term. The problem seems to apply to very many military articles, but ecclesiastical articles rarely seem to confuse "a bishop" and "Bishop Peter". Thanks, Shem (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it's not a big deal and I'm sure neither of us wants to get into an edit war about it but as I've said earlier, the quoted MOS section accepts consensus to not follow such rules hard and fast, and numerous reviewers, including the MOS hawks that FAC attracts, have accepted it if consistent within the article and there's a reason to do it -- to me it's more straightforward to capitalise ranks in all cases to easily distinguish them from similar-sounding postion names such as "flight commander", "wing leader", and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Nevertheless, can I congratulate you on a ballsy move - reverting Jimbo Wales! Shem (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I think you might have just sufferred a time sync experience - suggest you review http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Cross&action=history. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, surprised we didn't edit conflict, David Biddulph must've reverted the other guy's change just as I hit the save button... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember my High School Physics correctly, (big if), I think that's called time-division-multiplexing? Even more surprising when you realise the sequence was: +action 1; -action 1; +action 2; -action 2. Particularly when your -action 2 was intended to be a -action 1. Oh dear, it really is time I got a life! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite -- it sounds like something I'd enjoy but I'm not sure I'd have the time to properly devote to it with my other commitments at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hawkeye7#Going forward

I see you're going to be making the call at ACR. I don't know if it's helpful, but I also left some comments on Hawkeye's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks but I wanted to base that call purely on what saw in the ACR -- didn't even look at the article -- and my rationale is at the coord page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer)

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1941, RAAF Squadron Leader Peter Jeffrey (pictured) introduced the radical concept of commissioned and non-commissioned pilots sharing a common mess while on combat duty? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alan Charlesworth

On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Charlesworth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Alan Charlesworth (pictured) once survived an accident with future Governor of New South Wales Eric Woodward when their aircraft landed upside down on a fence? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF Overseas Headquarters‎

Hi Ian, I was a bit surprised to find that RAAF Overseas Headquarters‎ was a redlink while expanding the article on 462 Sqn, so I've gone ahead and created an article on it. I hope that this isn't stepping on your toes! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was on my list but had a long time to wait after area commands, Air Board, RAAF command problems in WWII, etc, etc. One reason for my delay was that I'd found no record of its disbandment -- it appears to have still been active in the early sixties, but that's about it. Chers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy

The reasons for not manually sizing images are clearly explained in our image use policy. If you personally find the default image size too small, then go to My Preferences -> Appearance and change your default thumbnail size. Manually sizing images overrides user preferences. Many users who are either visually impaired or have limited bandwidth rely on the ability to set their preferred image size and shouldn't be prevented from doing this due to your personal preferences. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply my personal preferences; fixed image settings in articles of mine and others, such as the one you edited, have gone through GA, A-Class and FA review with no issue being raised -- please do not set yourself up as the sole arbiter of policy interpretation or application against many other editors and reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the image use policy is a policy, not a guideline. Deviations from it have to be justified. If you check the GA review, the version of the article for which GA status was finalized did not have manually-sized images. As to your statement "please do not set yourself up as the sole arbiter of policy interpretation or application against many other editors and reviewers", the same might be said to you. Just because GA reviewers do not choose to enforce this particular policy does not mean that it is not policy. Exceptions are typically made for maps, diagrams, etc. which would be unreadable w/o manual sizing. Please do not impede the ability of visually-disabled users to choose their own defaults in their settings. I perceive that as an incredibly thoughtless, selfish, and self-serving attitude. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my personal preferences but making thisngs easier for the general reader; I cannot see the validity of your last statement and suggest you withdraw it. Can you give me a case of this being an issue for a user? Every article I've written this year that has gone through those reviews -- and there are many -- wouldn've had images set to a fixed size. When I do that and submit to a review then everything in the article is up for potential discussion and change -- why does no-one else think it's a problem, and why aren't you a part of that instead of showing up later? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it's all clearly explained at image use policy. Visually impaired users have to increase their text size, sometimes extremely. In order to accomodate this large text, they also use the thumbnail preference to make the images smaller, so that the don't reduce the text lines to one or two words. To quote the image use policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference." There are so many reasons users might not want their preferences overridden. Users in third-world countries may have small screens and low resolutions, requiring smaller images to make articles readable; there are still places where bandwidth is charged for, making images larger cost users more money. This is in addition to those with visually disabilities already mentioned. The default image size has been carefully chosen as a compromise between viewability and accessiblity. Registered users are easily able to enlarge or reduce images across Wikipedia according to their needs, but only if the images are not manually sized in the Image tag. I don't know why reviewers aren't sensitive to this, but they should be. GA reviewers should ensure that manual sizing is not used arbitrarily simply because of a preference for larger images than the default. Editors who prefer a larger default can and should set it in their preferences. I've brought this issue up on multiple articles and it is generally accepted by those who take the time to read and understand the policy and the reasons for it. In any case, I can't answer why reviewer ignore it... As for my comment, I wrote "I percieve" for a reason, because I assume that you simply haven't taken the time to read and think about the issue and what effect it might have on accessibility. I'm sure that once you do, you will understand and agree with the policy. Yworo (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for a longer respnse now but I have read the guideline, well before this, and am also aware of numerous discussions around it. I've worn glasses since I was seven, and might add that I include alt text in my articles even though there's no strict requirement for it, so don't make assumptions about my sensitivity to readers with visual impairment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jeffrey and 2OTU

Hi Ian, I'm not sure if you still need this, but I bought a second hand copy of Vol 8 of the RAAF units concise history today (it was cheap), and the dates Jeffrey commanded 2OTU were 27 April 1942 - 20 August 1943 (as the unit's first commander) and 27 November 1944 to 25 March 1947 (when it was disbanded until March 1952). The page ref is p. 64. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I guess Canberra's the right place to be for second-hand military books! Actually I stopped by at the Mitchell on Friday while I was in town to check it out after they found it, and picked up the data myself -- but thanks very much anyway. BTW, I see your range of subjects knows no bounds, is Hines your first bio? Seems like it, well done in any case! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it was meant to be a short article, but he turned out to be rather interesting. I've done a few other bios and am slowly plugging away at getting John Treloar (museum administrator) to GA or A class status, but I find them to very fiddly. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they ever... ;-) Writing the wing articles was like a holiday, this month I may just concentrate on commands/units and esoteria like my in-progress list of Duntroon cadets who joined the RAAF and leave the bios to you for a while...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for exemplary work on William Ellis Newton, Ian Dougald McLachlan and Alan Charlesworth, all of which were promoted to A-Class between May 2010 and January 2011. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, much appreciated... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YM's talk page

Thanks for the support, mate :) Aaroncrick ^TALK 10:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it has been undone. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a pretty good example of the gutless and vindictive campaign against YM. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's deceptively within the pale of civility, perhaps it has to stay there until YM's (hopeful) return -- but my lack of respect for anon editing in general, and this sort of criticism in particular, made my first reaction exactly the same as Aaron's. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin A. Loberg Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Edwin A. Loberg

Thanks for letting me know and fixing my mistake. I know User:AustralianRupert is busy with things offline and has managed to find "some" time to answer questions or whatever on Wikipedia when he has had the time. Plus when I've had queries about something he's one of only a few that I go to for questions, among other administrators etc on Wikipedia. Trying to build up relations with them. I appreciate what you've done with this article query of mine. Adamdaley (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob -- I don't always have as much time as I'd like for WP but as a coordinator on MilHist, please feel free to ask me as well if you have other queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double the work

...nice job ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha -- I edit conflicted with you after I'd verified Parsec's entries and saw your two additions so just assumed that was the whole reason, copied them along with the rest of the page as I had it, and clobbered the latest version with it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Way to go, you crazy fool! :P Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable public servants

Update. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Lamey Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Hubertus Lamey

I've come across Hubertus Lamey's article. It states in the infobox that he was in World War II. His service years are between 1915-1945. That should also include World War I, another source of information is he was awarded medals during World War I. Would like feedback on this (would be appreciated) and I'll change it to the correct information as well as his Discussion page needs a bit of fixing too. Adamdaley (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at 19 years of age in 1915, he was certainly old enough to be in World War I, and if the medals listed are correct, I assume he must've been awarded the 1914 Iron Crosses during the first war. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Understrength' vs 'under strength'

Hi mate, sorry about that. I had another reviewer on one of my other articles say the opposite - Battle of Kujin. Also my spell checker doesn't recognise 'understrength' only 'under strength' so now I'm confused! Are you sure? Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm basically applying the general rule that such double-barrelled terms are either hyphenated or joined together when used as adjectives (unless ending in "ly" like "highly placed"). This is just from experience but I notice "understrength" appears in Wiktionary as a adjective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Will go with understrength. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate -- if someone pulls you up for it again, let me know to add my 2 cents worth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another month, another plane project; perhaps it has a relation to your experience?

Certainly this month's article for regeneration, the English Electric Canberra light bomber, has a clear connection with Australia and the RAAF! I've being snooping into all sorts of sources online, but the referencing the Australian service, amongst other areas, has been tricky. There's no information in the article of when the debate to aquire them came in (unlike the Indian section, which I uncovered a few days ago) or the numbers made/delivery pattern. I'd be great to have more information on their Vietnam service and other operations under their Australian tenure, or anything in their inevitable decline after the F-111C came into service. If you find time is on your hands, maybe you can take a look? Kyteto (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering me ole' dad was in charge of No. 82 Wing when they entered service, I suppose I have some sort of obligation don't I...?! I'm not sure if I've ever seen the delivery pattern but I'm pretty sure we had 48 in total spread evenly across three squadrons, Nos. 1, 2 and 6. I know one motivation for getting it, apart from the desire for a jet to replace the Lincolns, was that it could carry nuclear bombs (also a motivator for the F-111 purchase, not that Australia's defence force ever went nuclear) and I can point you to a source for that at least: Stephens, Alan (1992). Power Plus Attitude: Ideas, Strategy and Doctrine in the Royal Australian Air Force 1921–1991. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. pp. 107–108. ISBN 0195555414. Another online source that might help you if you don't have it is Canberra at RAAF Museum. If there's need or room in the article for a 1950s-vintage photo of an Australian Canberra, I can scan one from an old photo album too... Anyway, see how you go with the previous, if you need more I can probably find something more in book form at our main library in Sydney -- let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book was absolutely outstanding; and you'll be happy to know was enough to develop the information on Australian service to the point where it deserved its own sub-section of the Operational History for the aircraft. You have helped me out massively there, I felt I had been hitting up against a brick wall on my efforts to find more good sources to redevelop the article with. It is a big aircraft, and I'm not even sure I'm going to be able to drag it up to the point of putting it in for GA, but I often think that on articles as I work on them! I'll keep slogging away at it, something this historical deserves to be well documented. Your help, as ever, is appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data on the delivery and disposal dates of the RAAF's Canberra's is available at http://www.adf-serials.com/2a84.shtml I've always found this to be a reliable source (though it is a hobby website). This book will have pretty much the same data and is definitely a RS - I can access it if you need any input. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the main one I was thinking of, Nick -- Sydney's Mitchell Library has it too... ;-) Glad Stephens was helpful, Kyteto -- I'll have look over the article soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Heath Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Barrie Heath

I am trying to find more information about his early life and his brother Grahame. Unfortunately no luck so far. I'll try and look more after I go out for an appointment. I specifically looked for "Grahame Heath" using different wording after it, but it brought up different results other than him. I'll be gone a few hours, once I return if you find information you could leave the website references for me to look at. It would be appreciated if you had time to do that. Adamdaley (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately I don't think I'd be able to provide anything more for this guy if you've already looked up Flight Global and your other sites. In Australia we have quite a bit on local airmen at our War Memorial and National Archives sites, but things seem more restrictive in Britian re. its military data. If you can cite what you have on his early life, I think you'd have a fair chance of securing a B-Class rating -- just don't forget to tidy up any bare URLs, and remove spaces between punctuation and citations, and between multiple citations; also capitalise and spell out fully the months in your access dates, and don't bother repeating websites in the external links section if you've already cited them in the article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

145th Armored Regiment (United States) Article

Ian Rose,

Article: 145th Armored Regiment (United States)

I would like to bring to your attention that viewing the above article with Internet Explorer 8 it leaves a BIG gap between the first paragraph at the top of the article to the next paragraph near the bottom of the Infoboxes. I have viewed it with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 and it looks the way an article should appear on wikipedia with minor tweaks. I will also let User:AustralianRupert know. Adamdaley (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - User:AustralianRupert has fixed the issue. No need to worry about it, you can see my discussion with him on his talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

542nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States) Article

Ian Rose,

Article: 542nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States)

I feel that this article needs a picture and a Military Unit Infobox. I am able to do the Infobox without the picture and the number of people who were in the unit during World War II. It could possibly improve the article greatly but I am concerned about the "orphan" tag (from 2009) at the time. To me there is enough links in the article to remove it. I'll also send this message to User:AustralianRupert. Any feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

192nd Tank Battalion Article

Ian Rose,

Article: 192nd Tank Battalion

I would like to suggest that an Military Unit Infobox be included in this article, have the US tank as main picture in the Infobox. I am able to do the infobox, but I feel I should leave the template tag at the topic of the article until someone can add more information to the beginning of the article then it can be removed. User:AustralianRupert will also get this message. Feedback be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algernon Sidney Badger Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Algernon Sidney Badger

Could you have a look at my comment on Algernon Sidney Badger Discussion page and a look at the "B-Class" criteria to see if you agree with me on adding a picture of Algernon Sidney Badger would make it to be a "B-Class" article for Military Assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, responded on article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Robertson article

Has this one been forgotten? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not permanently...! Just started working for a living again after my extended travel break so not much activity on WP lately -- but I will get to it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...with an ACR and FAC thrown in to make up for lost time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't think it was known as 1st AIF before there was a 2nd A a historical point, I found on opening a folder of documents in the War Memorial related to August 1914, that it was called "First AIF" even then. It seems that the prospect of there one day being another AIF was foreseen from the very beginning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't think they were such ~~pessimists~~ realists back then -- fair enough, I withdraw the edit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF news

Hi Ian, In case you didn't see them, there were two interesting Defence media releases today:

No. 452 and No. 453 Squadrons have been reformed (presumably to keep me busy with updating article pages!)
The RAAF's 90th Birthday celebrations are coming up.

In regards to the second item, are you considering nominating an RAAF-related article for TFA on that day? (the article on Williams being perhaps the obvious choice given he seems to be the most common 'father' of the service). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for reminding me mate, I honestly hadn't noticed that this year was the 90th since the RAAF's founding (wood for the trees)...;-) Williams is the logical one (promoted FA 2+ years ago, which also helps points-wise) so I've placed it in the TFA pending list for 31 March. Hopefully that will give me time to give it a bit of an overhaul, though it doesn't seem too bad after all this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that gets up. I'll try to have a look over the article as well. Nice work with this by the way - it's interesting what's buried away in entries in those books. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sometimes you've just got to try the peripheral approach -- anyway now we have that, and with those pointers to its 2000 reestablishment you gave me earlier, I think I'll now finish it off and submit for B-Class assessment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williams up for TFA now -- biggest challenge as usual was cutting the intro down w/o losing too much of interest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether it'll make the cut though -- like to marshal some of the troops for extra support but guess that'd be canvassing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF

On 17 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 24 non-fatal accidents at No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF in 1926 prompted its commander to remark that the cadets must have learned how to crash "moderately safely"? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maginot Line Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Maginot Line

Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:

Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooopppsss (Adrian Cole)

I did not realize I was adding to a featured article when I added the Aerodrome's victory totals to the bio of Adrian Cole (RAAF officer). (I was trying to add a link, to fend off orphandom for another article.) Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, as you have not responded to my comment re Richmond House, it struck me that you didn't get the IBG acronym - not surprising perhaps (I have to admit that my first ID for you was your dad) - and I also assumed that you were Canberra based. That being the case I'll ask him (IBG) myself at the next opportunity. Whilst we're here, I have a question - it has long been my ambition to write a bio of a relatively unheralded pioneer Aus aviator whose personal papers I hold. I could write some very interesting stuff covering the ME, PNG, Aus at war, and the formation of TAA, (and supply many photos) from original sources, but it seems to me that I would be in breach of the rules by so doing. Am I bound (in your view) to do the formal bio first, and let someone else use it as a reference?Lexysexy (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm intrigued to know who you are in RL, Lexy -- perhaps you should send me an e-mail... ;-) Yes, sorry I didn't respond to Richmond House before but as I said on Cole's talk page just now, it was more oversight than anything. As far as writing a bio on Wikipedia based mainly on personal papers, I think it could only be done two ways -- either write a book yourself and get it published and collaborate with someone on WP to use that as your main source, or else donate the papers to the AWM and hope they put them on the website so they're published that way and can be used on WP. The only thing with the latter course is that you'd still need to establish his notability via other sources and use them as much as possible since WP frowns on an over-reliance on primary material -- I do use personnel files from NAA sometimes but generally just for promotion and posting dates, and the occasional direct quote from correspondence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a smart fella like you should be able to figure me out quite quickly (not a challenge though). IBG is a sometime CAF who was OCRIC in the early eighties. Yes, I figured that I would actually have to do some serious work with the bio. There are a couple of web sites dealing with pioneer aviators that I might use if the book doesn't get to fruition - alternatively, I might mount my own page on a server and publish there.Lexysexy (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been a bit busy -- well I at least know who IBG is now thanks to your clue above, guess the rest'll come to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox airport

Ian, you may do better to ask for help at WT:MILHIST for assistance in assimilating details from {{Infobox Military Structure}} into {{Infobox Airport}}. Plenty of knowledgeable editors there. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Voß Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Ernst Voß

While reading Ernst Voß's article. I noticed at the very bottom of his Infobox that his later work was a Police Officer. But have a look when he was killed? Would that have been in between World War I and World War II? It certainly could not have been after World War II. Maybe an error by the original author? Maybe need's a reference to when he was a Police Officer? Adamdaley (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose,

Article: Ernst-August Fricke

Once again I am back. I am still uncertain if AustralianRupert is back to normal with Wikipedia. As the article above Ernst Voß I have added "citation needed" to him (meaning Ernst Voß) for being a Police Officer (inbetween World War I and World War II). Another article is Ernst-August Fricke am I correct to put a citation needed for reference for being an officer because it doesn't say in the article that "after World War II he went onto being a Police Officer" (I added a line in Ernst Voß that he was a Police Officer and you can look at his talkpage. I feel there needs to be a citation needed or a source or something to confirm when or roughly when he was a Police Officer. Adamdaley (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF forward air control units proposed merge

Hi Ian, if you have time, could you please comment on the suggestion to merge the various articles on the RAAF's FAC flights which has been made at Talk:No. 4 Squadron RAAF? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, for better or worse I have just about every RAAF squadron on my watchlist so I did notice George's post but have only just found time to think about it and reply... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Newm30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A class review of article on Nansouty

Ian, I went to review Alexandre's article on Nansouty, and only could find the nomination page. I realize I've been out of touch for a while...but isn't there a review page we are supposed to use for comments, not the nomination page? auntieruth (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo darlin' -- long time no see! No, the nom page is where comments go, the only thing that looks odd about is that we usually get a box of tools for dab and external link checks, like in FAC. I'm just finishing an ACR promotion, then I might take a look at this new one for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the toolbox -- gotta go out for coffee now, hope to see you round soon, Ruth! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Taplin

I have just created a stub on one of your fellow diggers. I find Taplin's life a fascinating one...as far as I could get. Thence this message. I want to know what happened to him in later years, as well as his death date/locale.

Would you, with your superior access to information about Australian aces, care to finish this tale (if possible)?

On an allied subject, do you want me to drop you notice of any stubs I create on Australian aces? Or are they already links on your watch list?

Best regards from "up top".Georgejdorner (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN review for 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

I've reviewed your article on the 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision. You can read the review here. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		Wikiwings
		For all your work on the Royal Australian Air Force articles. Newm30 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first Wikiwings so that means a lot, thank you very much! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 2 Flying Training School RAAF

On 11 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 2 Flying Training School RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "all-through jet training" on Macchis at the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 2 Flying Training School was called "an expensive way of finding out that some pupils lacked the aptitude to become military pilots"? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Australia Air War

Your intuition is better than mine. This article was a blatant copyvio. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat -- once again your extensive library comes in especially handy...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you're in the mood, I wonder if you might have anything in your library that matches the huge amount of unsourced and suspicious-looking material in Central Flying School RAAF. If you check the talk page you'll see there's already been discussion but, as I said there, I've not been able to locate the source online. I'd be interested in finding it as much for the fact that it happens to mention my father a couple of times when he was CO, as for having proof that the WP article is in copyvio, as I suspect. I'm tempted to wipe the whole lot except for the lead right now, but if necessary I'll wait till I write a new version using its Units of the RAAF entry that I've photocopied from the Mitchell, and other sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen anything like that. Judging from the way it's written, if it's a copyvio it's been taken from either an internal RAAF history or an account written for RAAF veterans (the giveaways as I see it are the use of capitalised abbreviations for ranks, use of the formal phrase 'His Majesty the King', relative emphasis on the unit's colours and the generally positive 'spin' on the wording - all suggest some kind of in-house publication). Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Australian Corps of Signals Article

Ian Rose,

Article: Royal Australian Corps of Signals

I was wondering if there should be a section on signals being used in World war II. Since I have two Signals books 1949 and 1954. Also, would it be appropriate if these books were put under "Bibliography" section? It's mostly about the Australian Signals during World War II. Adamdaley (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

On 13 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on 29 September 1940, two Avro Ansons collided in mid-air over Brocklesby, Australia, became locked together in "piggyback" fashion, and then successfully landed in a field? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the third jpg ("WhenAnsonLandsOnAnson1940.jpg") you have in the Brocklesby mid-air collision article is reversed left-to-right. I can see from the numbering on the preceding one that it is OK, so this one must be badkwards, as it appears to be reversed from the other. No big deal, but I guess you can fix it in your computer. Incredible story! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think you're right, well spotted -- will see about rectifying. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your "best seller".

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF

On 13 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the German ancestry and strict discipline of its first commander earned No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF the nickname "Scherger's Concentration Camp"? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful reference

Hi Ian, I visited the Australian War Memorial's Research Centre for the first time in ages today, and found that it now has the following book on its reference shelves: Australian War Memorial (1995). Squadrons, Formations & Units of the Royal Australian Air Force and their Deployment. Canberra: Unpublished monograph held by the AWM Research Centre.. This provides an outline of the key dates (formation, disbandment and major deployments) of what looks to be just about all RAAF units up to about the early 1970s. It's unpublished, but its introduction states that it was prepared by AWM staff from RAAF unit history cards, so I think it's easily a RS. I copied down a few dates (including 1TAF and No. 11 Group's disbandment dates), and it should be useful for other articles. Let me know if I can look anything up - I'm planning another trip with a list of details that need to be fleshed out in a few weeks. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you -- interesting they haven't simply digitised it and put it online to publish but I s'pose they have their priorities. It's hard to get impatient with AWM; I was just today running over in my mind the number of Australian MilHist articles that would be a pale shadow of themselves without the online media and articles they've made available. Thanks for that offer, I'll keep it in mind. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Balmer

On 25 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Balmer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Balmer achieved renown as a flying instructor in the RAAF by reputedly parachuting from an aircraft to force his pupil to land single-handed? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

One of many good hooks in this DYK load - thanks Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Can you post a more detailed review than [4] if you think the article fails B-class somehow? Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See its entry at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests‎. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now. Thanks for that, but can I ask you to copy that to article's talk page? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Request talk page is not properly archieved, and is not the best place for a discussion, is it? I will start working on addressing the points you made, but I'd like for that discussion to be visible on the talk page (as part of article's improvement history). I hope you don't mind my request, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that's all right, just had a busy morning earlier -- no reason you can't copy it yourself though, in future... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. I'd appreciate it if you could review it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the March 2011 Military history WikiProject Contest with 87 points from 12 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and thanks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the award. Now that WPUS is started to gain momentum I am going to try and review more of them. --Kumioko (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Reviewer Award

Thanks for the award. But for what article and contributions is it exactly?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Award ;) UltimaRatio (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Mustard

A First World War flying ace who conducted the first aerial survey of Australia's Barrier Reef. Later changed his name to "Mustar" and served in RAAF during the Second World War. Have you considered improving this article? I would have thought he was parked on your runway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for belated reply... Ah, yes, one of George's start-up articles... Although I'm concentrating on post-AFC personalities again now, I'd probably have a go at this chap but my initial quick search of sources reveals very little of the second half of his life. The official WWII history only mentions him once (and relates to pre-war service anyway), and even his ADB entry only gives 2 lines to events after 1934, though he lived till 1971! If I happen to find something that gives me enough to do a balanced treatment then I will but for now I think it'd be only two-thirds of a decent article at best... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Brill

On 8 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Brill, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during a raid on Berlin in 1944, RAAF Squadron Leader Bill Brill's (pictured) Avro Lancaster was struck by incendiary bombs dropped by another Allied aircraft above him? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 08:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Basic Flying Training School RAAF

On 13 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Basic Flying Training School RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 1 Basic Flying Training School was formed in 1951 in response to the RAAF's increased demand for aircrew during the Korean War and Malayan Emergency? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 00:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking Dan. I'd be happy to assist in actually writing the column but, in any case, here are some thoughts for encouraging more reviewers... When the subject of reciprocity in FAC (or ACR/PR/GAN) comes up, people often say they agree that one should review others' entries when they've put up an article for review, but they're not confident about it, or those on offer are not their line of country, content-wise. I've also heard old hands say they're unsure about "letting loose" less experienced reviewers in the system. We need to try and break this dual-edged syndrome. If you have the confidence to put up "your" article up for review, you should know enough about the assessment criteria to do some reviewing. It doesn't matter what the content of an article is, you can still check and comment upon the following:

consistency in formatting (dates, abbreviations, citations, etc),
citations for every statement or at least at the end of every paragraph,
appropriate licensing for each image, and
depending on your skill level in English, prose (readability, grammar, logic of expression, etc)

All of the above need to be reviewed for each article under assessment, and this covers a large chunk of FA criteria. If a new reviewer has to leave coverage and accuracy to others, that's okay, at least they've contributed something useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SEATO GAR

Thanks for starting the GA Review, but go ahead and take your time as I will be on vacation and probably won't be able to edit until April 21. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can find this. I've addressed all of the presented issues in some way or another, usually involving rewriting. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, completed my second pass at the review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John McCauley (RAAF officer)

The article John McCauley (RAAF officer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John McCauley (RAAF officer) for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review. Just one thing, shall I change the project assessments to GA or will you? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bell

Hi Ian, do you have a copy of The WAAAF in Wartime Australia handy? The Mary Bell (aviator) article says that she was a member of the Women's National Emergency Legion before leaving it (in 1939?) to set up her own organisation (according to the file on the organisation at the NAA this was one of several breakaway groups), and I'd be interested to know if this book has anything which could be used to beef up the Women's National Emergency Legion article. Don't worry about this is you don't own the book though! Cheers Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own it but it's at the Mitchell Library so I can have a look next time I'm in (which might be this week). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Ian. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the library now, mate. Unfortunately all there is appears on pp.37-38, how Bell took the 40-odd women with the Legion's Air Wing into the fledgling WATC, after they'd been at Archerfield studying aircraft maintenance with a view to releasing male ground staff for other duties, and become dissatisfied with their progress. Sorry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ian - it's helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward III (1312-1377) was one of the most successful English monarchs of the Middle Ages. Restoring royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father, Edward II, Edward III went on to transform the Kingdom of England into one of the most efficient military powers in Europe. His reign saw vital developments in legislature and government—in particular the evolution of the English parliament—as well as the ravages of the Black Death. Edward was crowned at the age of fourteen, following the deposition of his father. When he was only seventeen years old, he led a coup against his regent, Roger Mortimer, and began his personal reign. After defeating, but not subjugating, the Kingdom of Scotland, he declared himself rightful heir to the French throne in 1338, starting what would become known as the Hundred Years' War. Following some initial setbacks, the war went exceptionally well for England; the victories of Crécy and Poitiers led up to the highly favourable Treaty of Brétigny. Edward’s later years, however, were marked by international failure and domestic strife, largely as a result of his inertia and eventual bad health. Highly revered in his own time and for centuries after, Edward was denounced as an irresponsible adventurer by later Whig historians. This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many achievements. (more...)

Your GA nomination of Valston Hancock

The article Valston Hancock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Valston Hancock for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Harrison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 28 January 1945

Hi Ian, I've responded to your comments on this article's ACR. However, from the first one am I right in thinking that you're going to stay neutral? (no problems at all if so!). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've answered your question now, mate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the April 2011 Military history WikiProject Contest with 26 points from 4 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate -- believe it or not I was totalling Parsec's entries when I saw that you'd beaten me to it, so I decided to just let you keep up the good work from then on... ;-) At least it wasn't a biggie this month (I thought at one stage I'd do well to get an honourable mention with my total, let alone a place)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I wasn't sleeping well that night, so I got up at found myself doing that at midnight. Anyway, I probably won't be able to do much in the way of the contest for the next couple of months. I'm going back into the Army and will be pretty busy after 30 May (being posted, learning the new role, a couple of courses, etc.), so my Wiki duties will have to be scaled back. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to take the lead finalising this month's contest so don't worry. I think you were keen to get back, weren't you? Congrats if so, and good on you in either case! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, yes it has been my goal for the past 18 months, so I'm pretty keen to get back into the swing of things. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valston Hancock

Hi, Ian, I just had a quick look at the Valston Hancock article. It looks quite good, but one thing I saw needs checking. In the Post-war career section, "diagnosed as amoebic dysentry". Please check the spelling of dysentry - my Macquarie dictionary has "dysentery". Other than that it looks good. I didn't put this on the review page as I am trying to stay uninvolved so I can close a few reviews (given the current backlog). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a Clayton's review... ;-) I agree, I'm staying out of a few reviews in order to close, too. I'm sure you're right about the spelling too, and tks for the other fixes, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for your work on Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer), William Brill and John McCauley (RAAF officer), which were promoted to A-Class between March and May 2011. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Hunter

Just checking in and seeing if you had forgotten about the review over on the Hawker Hunter article; my apologies if the break has been due to busy-ness rather than forgetfulness! Thanks for taking it on BTW. Kyteto (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry taken a while but I did look the other day, just need to put comments down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

(re CA) - Clearly, great minds think alike! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have to admit disappoinment at you usurping one of my VERY few opportunities to validly use the word "diarchy" - I'll probably have to wait another 12 months before the opportunity presents itself again. Oh well. C'est la vie ... ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excusez-moi! I thought of using it, but in the end I chose directness over eloquence... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one does ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Sigh. Ah for those bygone days of leisurely eloquence.[reply]

Congrats!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Swords for outstanding work on Valston Hancock, Alister Murdoch and Colin Hannah, which were promoted to A-Class in May 2011. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed! BTW, not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth but did you plan to add it to the Awards page...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wasn't going to, I didn't want you to have too much recognition! ;-) Doing so now, thanks for the reminder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the ego feels suitably massaged now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admirals

Sorry, wasn't ignoring that bit you just took off, just didn't get round to replying after I had a quick look earlier (you did say low priority)... ;-) If it matters now, my main concern when I looked at it was that the table was too detailed -- I thought the method used in the similar list of RAAF Air Marshals was perhaps easier on the eye. Also there's a mix of abbreviations and spelt-out ranks. Certainly a list worth having though, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Yes, I did say low priority. (And meant it. I'm not upset. In fact, I'm rather please you replied.)

I'm interested to learn why you feel it is "too detailed", and why that is a problem?

(Yes, perhaps the method used in list of RAAF Air Marshals is easier on the eye, but I've always preferred substance over form, so I guess I have a different bias, and I'm interested to understand other PsOV.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yes, the list is under construction, and I haven't resolved the inconsistencies yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob there. Re. detail, I just don't think it's vital to know when they attained every rank on the way to their top position if it makes for a cluttered table with lots of columns. I note that not all columns are filled for all entries, which if it's because you haven't got round to it is one thing, but if it's because the data isn't known or is not applicable makes for a lot of wasted cells. If you do want to keep that sort of detail where it's applicable, you could have fewer columns and include that in an all-purpose Career Notes column, even if that means some entries go over one row. I tend to think one shouldn't have columns unless one really wants to sort on them, and sorting on say when everyone became a Commodore doesn't strike me as that useful when measured against an easy-to-read presentation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting. My POV is almost the exact opposite. I suspect I may be in the minority.

In addition to my "substance-over-form" POV, I am also aware that "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it."

Hmmm. I'm not sure where to go from here - there seems to be little/no point in putting a huge amount of effort into creating a table that "no-one" particularly wants, and "every-one" thinks is not useful.

Suggestions? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I think the table/article is useful, I (personally) would just drop the year/rank columns to compromise on the detail/readability ratio -- pls see what a few others think, e.g. Nick/Hawkeye/Saberwyn (not sure I splet his name right, gotta go). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. (Most appreciated.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate

...but you might want to comment at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SUK11562BrillPortrait1943.jpg. I've sent it there in the hope of getting to the bottom of the copyright issue. I'm hoping someone on Commons will have more than an outline understanding of these things, which would settle the issue on whether it's usable or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem chum, if consensus deems it unsuitable for an FA, this'd be the logical next step. My main regret of course is that it's not often one has an excuse to get a shot of a pretty girl into a MilHist bio... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That alone would make it worth keeping if it were up to me. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on William Brill.

Ten Four Awards! Congrats! Little Mountain 5 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been a long time between drinks but I think worth it -- many thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Ian Rose for his great efforts in the May 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 50 points from six articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, and my very best to you as you get back into the (service) swing of things...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New book that might be of interest

I found, and bought, the recently released book Cooper, Anthony (2011). Darwin Spitfires : The Real Battle for Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 9781742232270. today. It would probably be of interest to you - it's a very detailed and lavishly produced book with lots of detail (I think) on the personalities involved in the air campaign over Darwin. I'm just hoping that it doesn't mean too much extra work on the No. 1 Wing RAAF article! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Yes, I think there'd be nothing more frustrating than finding every damn source you can on a subject, spending ages putting them all together into a great-looking article, and then a brand new book comes along with the potential to make you re-think the lot...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request

Hi Ian, could you have a look at Air Chief Marshal (Australia)#Australian Air Chief Marshals please? To me it doesn't read very smoothly, and also, it seems a bit "loose". e.g. I sincerely doubt that it was the 'Australian Air Corps officers [who] "dropped" (sic) their army ranks in "favour" (sic) of those based on the Royal Air Force.' Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That page attributes Neville McNamara with the post-nominal "AE" - that's not one I'm familiar with, and Neville McNamara doesn't mention it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be obstructionist, but I'm not really the best person to ask. Firstly, I've never been in favour of these specialist Australian rank articles. Secondly, I'm probably indirectly responsible for the some of the phrasing you refer to as it looks suspiciously like a passage from the article I wrote on Richard Williams (ironically never an ACM) -- someone most likely just lifted it. From memory, though, it was a fair paraphrase of the wording used in the source so I wouldn't change it of my own accord. Obviously due my lack of interest in the rank article, I have no issue if you or anyone else alters it there... ;-) Re. McNamara, no I don't think AE is one of his postnoms either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but I'm not really the best person to ask. - Ah ha. Who is? (I'm sure you realise that it's WAY out of my field.)

Firstly, I've never been in favour of these specialist Australian rank articles.' - Really? Oh. Sorry about that. It seems I either made a wrong assumption, or came to a wrong conclusion. My apologies.

Secondly, ... - OK. (I guess I file that under "older and ~~wiser~~ better informed".)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. OK, I'll have a go at it, but if someone complains, I'll blame you! (After all, why wouldn't I?) ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I think you're probably entitled to reply "bastard" if you wish ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Lindemann

Thanks for the heads up. The changes seem legitimate. Regarding the breakout out from the Gotenhafen/Norway. The editor is correct. Originally when I wrote the lead it read breakout from the Baltic Sea into the North Atlantic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAF candidates

but now I look again that bit has always been OR -- it'll probably end up on the cutting-room floor
In any and all circumstances, I agree it should end up on the cutting-room floor. Soon.

If you examine the words, what was there is not only OR, it's also inaccurate. It said:

The Chief of Air Force may be selected from any of the RAAF’s Air Vice Marshal appointments

However, VCDF is a 3* ...

And more pragmatically and obviously, I can't imagine a scenario where CAF is not going to be selected from a RAAF 2* and VCDF (if VCDF at the time is a RAAF officer).

So, in my no doubt biassed opinion, the sooner it hits the cutting-room floor, the better.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Flying School RAAF

G'day Ian. Congratulations on the good work you did with No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF! In January we discussed the sad state of Central Flying School RAAF. See your diff. I almost despair of that article.
Today I was tempted to put the cat among the pigeons by nominating it for deletion on the grounds that it is all unsourced and therefore original research. However, I settled for changing the Refimprove tag to an Unreferenced tag. Now that you have finished No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF is there any chance you might have some sourced material that is common to both articles and could be added to CFS RAAF in place of some/all of the OR presently there? Cheers. Dolphin (t) 06:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, tks re. 1FTS. Yes I do have the material to produce a decent CFS article, I just kind of overdosed on flying schools what with 1FTS, 2FTS, 2SFTS, 5SFTS, 1IFTS and 1BFTS in short order, so I couldn't face another! I will get round to it some time though, I just need to tire of my current spate of CAS bio enhancements, which I'm sure I shall before too long... ;-) I think you made the right choice not nominating for deletion, on the other hand all that unreferenced (and, I suspect, copied) material after the intro could legitimately be culled -- I'll be re-writing the body of the article from scratch, so it will get clobbered sooner or later anyway. Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that offer! Dolphin (t) 06:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Info Boxes

Hi Ian, There were heaps of errors and complications that User:Nford24 has made on info boxes. There seems to be a precident to include the ranks and postnominals in the top section of info boxes (not only Military ones). User:Pdfpdf and I have worked through a heap of these. I agree that the Small/Big/Small seems unnessecary and should just be standard font size. However, I think the honorific, Rank and postnominals should be included.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I've seen this in office holder infoboxes, I don't know where the precedent is in military bios -- and if something isn't explicitly required or agreed in a style guideline then I think we should alwways take our cue from articles that have undergone community review at GA/A/FA-level, and I don't recall seeing this in any of the many military bios I've reviewed (let alone written of course) at those levels. I can't see the argument for this complication, the infoboxes and first line of the lead paragraph include rank and post-nominals, why not just keep things simple? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) Here I was, trying to be a good corporate citizen for a change (rather than reverting), only to find that the "right" thing to do would have been to revert ... (Murphy's law rules!)

The truth be told, I don't really care. As Oliver said, a very keen and productive newby (Nford24) made a heap of not-quite-right changes. Without giving it much thought, when I came across individual errors, I fixed them. I noticed Oliver doing much the same thing. So I decided that rather than doing them individually in a peacemeal fashion, I'd approach it systematically. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems a better approach would have been to consider the basic rationale of the whole group of changes, rather than looking individually at the individual errors. However, (sadly), I didn't.

If pressed to express an opinion, I'd probably say my personal first preference is for: "Bill Smith". (Which, it appears to me Ian, is what you prefer?)

If the pre-noms and post-noms are to be included, I prefer the small/big/small - I don't like any other arrangement, including normal/normal/normal. But I'll re-iterate that I prefer the no-pre-noms-and-no-post-noms option.

I don't know what the policy is and (again, being truthful) I don't really care.

In sort-of-answer to your various questions: Nford24 decided on the changes and, until your comments, no one had challenged it.

why not just keep things simple? - That sounds good to me.

I suppose the only opposing comment I'd make is, "It would be good if we could implement this without jumping on top of the newby."

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. My only question would be, why a difference between Office Holders and Military? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC) PS At least they are not moreicons!;)[reply]

First off, thanks for clarifying that you guys were only trying to tidy up after someone else's crusade. Re. the difference, don't know why, just when I came across office holders, it seemed to be the standard for them, but when I came across military bios it seemed not to be. I didn't bother arguing against what seemed to be the prevailing standard re. the office holders even though I found it fussy and redundant, but I would (and, as you see, have) argued against extending the style to military bios. One (defeatist I admit) reason I didn't bother trying to change it in office holders is that I hate the template anyway, as it's so thin compared to the military infobox and many bits of info wrap annoyingly to new lines -- I tried getting some people to alter that to make it similar to the military infobox and nothing happened, so I've effectively given up on improving it to save my breath for more important things... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angus

Maybe you can answer [this one?] Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance (3)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Adrian Cole in Palestine, 1917

Adrian Cole (1895–1966) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Joining the army at the outbreak of World War I, Cole transferred to the Australian Flying Corps in 1916 and flew with No. 1 Squadron in the Middle East and No. 2 Squadron on the Western Front. He became an ace, credited with victories over ten enemy aircraft, and earned the Military Cross and the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1921, he was a founding member of the RAAF. "King" Cole had risen to the position of Air Member for Supply by 1933 and gained promotion to Group Captain in 1935. The following year he was appointed the first Commanding Officer of Headquarters RAAF Station Richmond. During World War II, Cole led North-Western Area in Darwin and held a series of overseas posts in North Africa, England, Northern Ireland, and Ceylon. As Forward Air Controller during the Dieppe Raid in 1942, he was wounded in action and awarded the Distinguished Service Order. Cole served on corporate boards of directors following his retirement from the RAAF

Tks, spotted this approaching a bit earlier and performed a minor ce to get it fully up to speed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations

You may (or may not) find Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations of interest. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sorry about your need for this edit. Peter Raw would have had an interesting job running 82 Wing in 1666... Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it was good for a laugh, and to be honest I never much liked putting commas and a full stop, with one reference at the end, for all those OCs -- your addition of Raw gave me an excuse to break it up and go one citation per entry... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am (slowly) working on his article, though it's now been prioritised behind travel planning. The draft is at User:Nick-D/Drafts3. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Europe still, is it? BTW, I haven't forgotten cleaning up a crest for 79SQN, but probably best not give the image ~~nazis~~ reviewers a fair-use pic (even one perfectly justified) to think about during FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm off to Europe. I agree - the fewer fair use pictures in articles the better. The crest is on the tail of the Hawk in the lead photo anyway ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Read and F-111C

Hi, I've just noticed that Charles Read (RAAF officer) is on GAN. I had a brief look, and saw that the F-111C is mentioned there. Coincidentally, General Dynamics F-111C is also a current GAN. Wouldn't it be interesting if I take care of Charles Read and you look at F-111C? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 June 2011

Heh, well it was probably next on my list anyway so no prob with that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy with YF-23 now? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for it to stabilise after comments and edits -- will go over it again later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Completed review of F-111C, and responded to your comments on Charles Read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]