User talk:Skinny87/Archive2

re 11th ABN

I've done so more work on it, which is about as far as I can go for now as coord stuff (and RL, this weeekend) is pressing. Is it ready for FAC and will it pass? That depends who reviews it. In my view, the copy still needs more work. It remains wordy in places (mostly over-explanation) and although I've fixed some of them still has slightly clunky internal repetitions ("transported by transport aircraft", overuse of "formation" for example). I'd ask EyeSerene for a second opinion if I were you :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review for U-5-class submarine

I'm not sure if you saw my responses at Talk:U-5 class submarine or at my talk page, so I wanted to let you know that I believe that I've addressed your concerns raised in the GA review of U-5-class submarine. When you have a chance, can you take a look at the article, my changes, and my responses? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review leves

You offered your helping taking over some GA reviews. Leves is such a candidate, the article is self-contradicting and the editor presented selected facts from sources in other articles, leading to presentations that didn't point out differing opinions. That said, I ask you to make a careful review because I don't have the time for a thorough check. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetrach references.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conflate the references within 5 pages of each other to a single reference. Having separate entries for page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the same book doesn't help readers of wikipedia, but it does create pointless spam in the reference section. Hohum (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assume you think it's sensible to condense multiple references when they are on the same page though? Hohum (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Long time no see!

re: Bazooka

Hey there. I left some notes pre-GA Review on the talkpage of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll take a look, but the article "fate per se" was not really my concern... the back story is here... such an article is well beyond start class... as at least "average" (i.e. "C"... I hope and trust you at least agreed with "that"! <g>). I was more TICKED by the template, and had hoped to stimulate proper classification and improvement efforts. So Thanks! // FrankB 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that discussion looks...complex. I'd suggest removing the article from the GA Noms, as it won't pass. It needs some good sources, no websites or documentaries, Tell you what, I have Tetrarch (tank) to get to GA and a few other articles to work on, but this has picqued my interest. Give me a week or two and I'll see if I can scrounge up some sources to get it to GA. Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
   Not really... upshot is template wouldn't take commands I expected like others of type... class=X ought be consistent for all such, IMHO...

Heh, heh... but the GA nom has already worked... it's attracted YOUR interest. For my part, I merely made sure it had some data from the documentaries you trash ... my sole involvement, save for cosmetic stuff like title format, layout changes, etc... overall trivial things. Documentaries, are like news articles, they are better than wild ass guesses, and who is to say that their researchers are less skilled than a book writer's? Both have an editorial oversight and employer to vett the researchers work. Dissing such is kind of snobby to my way of thinking.

OTOH, fully agree with books as best source... but what then do YOU DO when two authors disagree... say one insists German's copied bazooka from Russians, and another copied from the one's captured at the Kasserine pass? in the North Africa Campaign?
    Not being Godlike, I can't say who is correct, whether both, or neither, and mostly, so can't anyone else! Enjoy trying though. But not as much as enjoy making sure we cover alledged factoids asserted elsewhere, including your despised documentaries... even if just in counterpoint! // FrankB 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Just wanted to say I've seen your copyediting comments on A-class and FA candidates and I'm really impressed. Dhatfield (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Skinny, I see that in your GA review of Bruce Kingsbury you requested that the blockquote be enclosed in quotation marks. WP:MOSQUOTE specifically states that they should not be. David Underdown (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Conversion template

Here it is! {{convert|49|MT|ST|sp=us}} JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want

fyi, and on
   Talk:Bazooka...So what do you want... If I remove the GA tagging now, there's no stimulus to have people improve it. But if you want, I'll do that if you deem it wisest. That FYI is why I don't get involved in this kind of microscopic colonoscopy on articles... then again, there's endless editing mercilessly on top of that. Getting too deep in an article leaves one liable to feelings of emotional attachement, AND I learned in my first month here, edit wars are really ugly things... and counterproductive. (I ended up mediating THAT, btw—and many others as a members advocate because of it.) Hence I fiddle in an article if and only if I can call it an improvement.

• ThinkBlue's unthinking self-aggrandizement vice performing an easy fix of the minor glitches is masturbatory at best... which attitudes are far more common these days around here.

Cheers! // FrankB 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ping // FrankB 21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Forts in Mumbai GA nom

Hi! Thanks for your comments, but merging all the forts into one article is counter productive. Each fort is located in a different region, built by different rulers (British/Portuguese/native), and for different purposes. Having it merged would present us with several problems including what to do with the infoboxes. For a full listing see List of forts in Mumbai.

Well, now that brings us to the size of the article: Yes, it is on the shorter side most unfortunately. I have been researching on these forts for the last five years, keeping aside any newspaper reports on them. In addition, I visited each and every one of them armed with a camera and GPS device. Unfortunately, too little has been written on these forts in any authoritative source. Based on my understanding of forts and general interest in them, I could expand the article myself, but that would be WP:original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Given this scenario, the scope for expansion is almost nil. Your thoughts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan to GAfy all, and get the list page up to FL standards. I've paused work actually on the other articles. I have quite a number of fort pictures in my camera that need to be transferred, but mu USB is not working, and have little time to fix it. FA-class would never be possible unless I manage to get hold of a dedicated account of the history and architecture of the fort. Quite unlikely IMO. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

TNA

I work there, but in the IT department, so I'm not always fully in the picture with what's going on in the actual reading rooms. Still, feel free to email me, and I'll do my best to answer your queries. David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for thinking of me! Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review for SS Czar

I don't know if you have seen my replies to the GA review for SS Czar or not, so here's a friendly notice (or reminder). I did have a couple of questions (posted there) about some items I was not clear on. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity Reply

In Operation Varsity 16,870 were dropped behind the Rhine. During Operation Market Garden over 34,600 were dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf7692a (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd poke my head in to clarify (per my understanding, of course): Market Garden was three separate drops over three geographically distinct areas, so it cannot be said to have been one single drop. As you pointed out on Jf692a's talk, Varsity was one single drop in one location, so it's the largest single drop in airborne warfare.

Also, congrats on passing FAC with the 13th! Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

3rd Hussars

Not a problem - I just couldn't bear to see all those empty headers...

I'm impressed with the level of detail you're going into; if you can keep this up it'll definitely be FA-grade (it might even need pruning down when you've done). A cavalry regiment is a good choice for something to hack at - the scope is quite cleanly defined, at least once you've got past the knotty early period, because you don't need to worry about how to write about subunits and associated volunteers and so on, which really threw me when I tried to do one of the big infantry regiments. Is there any particular reason for choosing this one, out of interest?

Good luck, and let me know if you want a second pair of eyes to copyedit it! Shimgray | talk | 12:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Universal Carrier

In your recent edits to Universal Carrier you have moved some of the images to a gallery. Please consider reverting this and then discussing it on the article's talk page per Wikipedia's image use policy regarding galleries. I haven't done so, to avoid an edit conflict, as I see you are still in the midst of making changes. Hohum (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, obviously no need to revert if you're doing a major rewrite. I'd suggest creating a sub-page off your userpage for saving data during editing. Hohum (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Books and Records

Can I suggest that you telephone the Imperial War Museum in London and make an appointment to use their library. (Use of the library is by appointment only.) You will have to tell them what you are researching. When I have used it they have sorted out books for me so that when I arrived I could start working. The library is reference only. (Incidentally, they also have a separate photographic library - again an appointment is needed.) The National Army Museum also has a library that you could use if you made an appointment.

The National Archives at Kew has stuff on the vehicles you are interested in, though not in an easily digested form, and it is scattered in all sorts of funny places in the WO files. Please be aware that by late 1941, when 8th Army troops referred to 'Light Tanks' in reports they meant M-2/M-3 Stuarts. I did some work 18 years ago and mistakenly thought that they meant Mk VI Light Tanks.

With respect of books - try Motor Books in St Martin's Lane in London, and Foyles in Charing Cross Road in London. Often you can find things by browsing the shelves.

With respect of tanks, try looking at biographies of people who served in them. Note that books such as Official Histories will contain some information of relevance to you.

Tanks used by the British Army are very well documented.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar given

Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

drop by

Proposal to end the template conflict and let the users decide. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about your project

Hello. I noticed your Airborne project and I was wondering if it is exclusive to Airborne operations of World War II? One of the articles I've been working on, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team is close to FA status, but it needs a little more help from some book sources on its history, but most of that would be found in Vietnam War material. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for anything I can get, but I'm afraid that info on Corregidor might throw the article off topic since the unit wasn't active at the time. If there's anything more you can add to the Vietnam section, though, it would be highly appreciated! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

		The WikiChevrons
		Thank you for keeping an eye on USS Nevada (BB-36) while it was on the main page on December 7th. Your efforts were very appreciated. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

battle of Mont Sorrel

Thanks for the MoS work and the complement of the article. Care to offer any additional copy-edit suggestions before GAN? --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M22 Locust

The article M22 Locust you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:M22 Locust for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch (tank)

		The Original Barnstar
		For the superb work you have done in turning Tetrarch (tank) from a stub into a terrific article Gillyweed (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey, Skinny, would you be able to take a look at the FAC for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division and offer your comments and suggestions? Cam ^(Chat) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Thanks for your "blessing" of the article. I may now shoot for Featured Article status. Could you recommend what I may need (if anything) to improve it for the FA review. One editor suggested adding a bit of "color" background here and there on some topics -- to keep the average reader engaged. An example could be a short blurb on the tactical role of riflemen in the Rev. War relative to that of the musketmen. I appreciate any insights/suggestions.Tfhentz (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ACR

I can't, since I am an involved editor. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

GAN request

hey man, if you have time, would you be able to review The Moro River Campaign for me for GAN? Thanks, Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

705th TD

As serious as I am about anything :-)

I've been slowly ticking through the WWII TD units - they're a nice limited set of things to work on - and I generally try to get them about as far as they'll reasonably go in an evening. The 705th does, as you note, have the potential for a lot more, but I'm not sure how much the research would pay off - it features only incidentally in the official history, it seems. I'll try checking Eisenhower's book when I'm back at work (there's a copy in the library) and see what it has.

The problem is that it needs to refer back to a larger framework to be coherent, and our article on the Siege of Bastogne is not desperately good; it needs a good shakeup, but I'm not particularly enthralled by the idea of taking it on. It's one of those articles that's limited very much by its context, you know? Anything you feel like providing would be appreciated as always, though! Shimgray | talk | 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch tank image

Hi Skinny87.

The image was tagged as 'Public Domain' so I assume it still is. According to the history it was found at [World War 2 Pictures in color] I don't know any more as I just edited the file, I wasn't the original uploader. That was Oberiko. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Military Biography

Lol, I appreciate the thought. Hmm, well it all comes down to personal preference when it comes to article writing, and how the primary contributor(s) wish to present the information. For a case such as Gale, I would recommend a style simular to the following section wise: Early life --> First World War --> Between the wars or Inter-bellum --> Second World War --> Later life or something to that effect. I have done something simular to this on Francis Hassett, an Australian general (although I still have further expansion pending :). Well, I hope this helps and is able to give you a ruff idea on how to present the information. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Astonia

Thanks for your edits here! A talk with the guy who rated it initially has resulted in a list-thing of all the points needed to turn it into a B-class article; you've covered all of them except the use of Le Havre as a major Allied port after the battle. I don't have any sources on the subject myself (when creating the article I was limited to "what does google say"; would you happen to? One little push and it'll be (depressingly) the best article I've been involved in. Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch copyediting

Hey Skinny, I am not really the best copyeditor, my articles also get picked out at FAC as well. User:GrahamColm has helped me in the past, User:Roger Davies can do copyediting, but arbcom will be taking up his time I suspect. User:YellowMonkey might help, or take a look at WP:MHL#COPYEDIT. Sorry I couldn't be of any more help. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article should pass the test. You have done great work. Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your edits to M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. I've been preparing that rewrite for a long time now and i'm thankful someoen took the time to proof-read my work. Patton123 00:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Tetrarch

Congratulations on getting the light tank to be an FA. I apologise that I did not promptly act on your request, but this is what I would have done before supporting it. Nonetheless, Sandy has judged (correctly) from the overwhelming support the article received that it should be an FA; any remaining grammar issues were likely minor. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki cup

Hi Skinny, I think you've chosen a flag that already flies in the cup. However the White Ensign is still available. ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Cam's RfA

I wouldn't be too concerned about that new oppose. EyeSerene^talk 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither would I. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Roger. I've never really got involved in RFAs before other than voting, but that vote just got to me. It's a vote that is the opposite of AGF, and doubly so for a Coordinator with his record against another Coordinator. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they're both coordinators shouldn't make a difference here (the !voting is based on experience/perceptions not allegiances) though I can understand why it rankled. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I've fixed all the issues with regards to the GAN for Operation Windsor. Feel free to check back in. Cam ^(Chat) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re 11th Airborne Division (United States)

I've made a start on the copyedit; I'll post questions etc on the article talk page. Please feel free to change back anything you don't like ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'm trying to do yours and Op Cobra simultaneously (since although Eurocopter is behind you in my queue, I think it's going to FAC fairly soon), so apologies if things are a bit sporadic, and don't worry if it goes a bit quiet every so often ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Actually, I think switching between the articles will give me a bit of variety, and it'll be good for me to spend time on non-admin related stuff for a while ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of WWI

Did you actually look at the talk page? It's already there. Please undo your revert.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ParaData finally got back to me

Here's what they told me:

Thank you for your email - I will look into modifying the copyright credits on the images you say are in the public domain but would like to inform you that we are working with the Imperial War Museum, as the new Airborne Forces Museum (of which the ParaData website is a part) is situated at Imperial War Museum Duxford. We have had several meetings with them and they are fully aware that we are using some of their images on our site and we have agreements in place.

So that's that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bronze wiki

		2008 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "significant contributions to the areas of World War II battles/engagements and airborne warfare" and writing three Featured Articles, one A-class Article, and five Good Articles as well as being active in the GA review", I award you this Bronze Wiki. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hamilcar Glider

Hi Skinny87.

Unfortunately I don't have access to a copy of Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1945-1946, so sorry, I can't help. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fellow on WWI article

Blocked him indefinitely. Just looked at some odd comments and noted that he's only got a few edits, all of them talk pages and seems to know all the policies already. Seems like a great big leg-pulling account saying Mein Kampf is a RS and comparing 1914 Serbia to the Taliban and OBL. I think you should be more cynical with some folks.... There's this guy on the VN War page who never edits and only drones on and one saying that the US didn't lose and nobody answered him luckily, except a few hard-core anti-US guys who did the opposite... No need to reply to him. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bostock GA Review

"Pop off to bed and work in the morning"?? How can you pop off to bed and then work when there's reviewing to be done?! ;-) Anyway, this is your buzz as requested...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI theatres in the Middle East

Perhaps you might try the Australian War Memorial website. You might also consider scanning the external links at Australian Light Horse. --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GAN stuff

hey man, I'm having a thought. If I review Operation Freshman, would you be able to review Japanese battleship Musashi? Cam ^(Chat) 19:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

that's probably because I proof-edited everything in my sandbox first. I'll deal with the stuff ASAP. Cam ^(Chat) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've addressed most of the issues - could you check back in? Cam ^(Chat) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not being more specific. References usually format themselves as "last name, first name (year). title. Place of publication. Publishing company, ISBN #". You've got everything except where the books were published. Cam ^(Chat) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On another note, if you have a minute, could you take a look at the ACR for Operation Totalize? Cam ^(Chat) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Derrick GAN

Hi Skinny. I noticed you listed your name down about three days ago to review the article Tom Derrick I nominated for GA. As it hasn't been reviewed yet, I thought I would give you a friendly poke to remind you just in case it was forgotten. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I thought that may have been the case. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All addressed, and waiting for your willing reviewer eyes. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nope, I plan to fix up all Aussie VC bios; most of them so far have been WWI, only Derrick and Edwards are WWII. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek VI

I've actually been wanted to get a copy of it, but the only thing I could get off interlibrary loan was the audiocassette version (not very useful for citations, besides the fact I don't have a tape player.) I'll probably have to end up buying it anyhow, but thanks for the note. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably mostly ghost-written anyhow, although I think you'd be surprised that Star Trek V's failure wasn't as much Shatner's fault as most would believe... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's an actor. It's sort of a given, he's just more obviously self-absorbed than most :) In fact, while the original cast hated working under him (understandably) and there was an excess of Shatner moments (also understandably), Shatner's direction was in many ways better than Nimoy's in Star Trek III; unfortunately there was no money for effects, one too many plot devices thrown in, and the god-awful humor shoehorned in because the Paramount execs wanted to keep with the formula STIV set. I have to wonder how much better it might have been if it had not been the film after Star Trek IV... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to start working on the other eight films we've got left to go, please do :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the only "guide" is by example; Star Trek II is FA and Star Trek VI is well on its way. Each section is pretty much explanatory; you've got plot, cast and cast details, concepts for the film, the visual design, filming, effects, reception and home video release. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:MOSFILMS too. :) Alientraveller (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of General Aircraft Hamilcar

Hello! Your submission of General Aircraft Hamilcar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sunderland06 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for General Aircraft Hamilcar

On February 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Aircraft Hamilcar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Market Garden

I'd be happy to help with Operation Dragoon — especially the logistics section. I have a great deal of material. But how about finishing off Operation Market Garden? I have amassed a pile of information about the Resistance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support in the Karl Brommann AFD Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamilcar

I'd be happy to, but it might be a little while before I can (possibly tomorrow or the day after).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

British airborne operations during WWII

Would Operation Squatter

Further information: History of the SAS

not qualify for User:Skinny87/Navbox  ?

Good luck --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I've added it in. Skinny87 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Varsity

March 24

Operation Varsity was a joint American–British airborne operation that took place in March 1945, towards the end of World War II. It was planned to aid the British 21st Army Group in securing a foothold across the River Rhine in western Germany by landing two airborne divisions on the eastern bank of the Rhine near the towns of Hamminkeln and Wesel. The operation took place on the morning of 24 March 1945 as a part of Operation Plunder, the overall effort by 21st Army Group under Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery to cross the river and from there enter Northern Germany. The operation involved two airborne divisions from US XVIII Airborne Corps: the British 6th Airborne Division and the US 17th Airborne Division. The operation called for the two airborne divisions to be dropped by parachute and glider behind German lines near Wesel, with their primary objective to be the capture of key territory and to generally disrupt German defenses to aid the advance of Allied ground forces.(more….)

Fairey Swordfish

Hi. If you think I am incorrect, you can revert it if you want to. I'm not too fussed. :) Wallie (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Something for the weekend

Hi surfing the web I have found this that might interest you http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/op_banner/pages/y336l028.pdf , Its a bit about the Para Squadron,Royal Armoured Corps --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for jumping in on my talk page. I'm not sure why it's being argued that a non-notable band deserves a redirect that should point to a well known subject, but hey. Also, congrats on getting Varsity on the main page next month! Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

M113

I think that the M113 Gavin should be included. It is well supported in Google, as you say. Someone keeps reverting me and sending me notes that I am "breaking ze rules". :) Wallie (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I have tried to discuss things, it never goes the way I want it to. In this case, I think someone doesn't like Jim Gavin. I hate this sort of politics. Wallie (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not right. I am not "picking fights". If I add something, and it is reverted, I would suggest the other party is picking the fight. There are too many destroyers on Wikipedia and not enough creators, to my mind. It is very easy to revert stuff, and probably makes the person doing feel good, as they are keeping Wikipedia "free of vandals". However, they are also killing off creativity. I will continue to fight these b*s. Wallie (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think in the Churchill article, I am wasting my time totally. The Churchill article is highly biased and will remain so. The English will always lionize Churchill, whereas people like me see some failings. Any criticism of Churchill no matter how well sourced is immediately reverted. Wallie (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Freshman

Hey, in regard to the book you need for Operation Freshman, I have access to several major libraries and I'd be happy to get it out myself and look up anything you need for the article if you'll just give me the title and publication info. You can just drop a note on my talk page or back on the assessment page. Cool3 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to turn up one book on the subject, Operation Freshman, by Richard Wiggan. There seems to be one other good book on the subject: Operation freshman : the hunt for Hitler's heavy water, by Jostein Berglyd, but I'm unable to get my hands on a copy. Your user page says you're at the University of Warwick, though, and according to WorldCat, the Warwickshire County library is one of the few libraries in the world to have a copy, so you might want to stop by there and pick it up if you can. Cool3 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinder book? Do you mean the Wiggan book? Sorry if I mistakenly referred to it as the Kinder book somewhere. It's in the bibliography now. Oh, were you referring to the published: Kimber? Cool3 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now supported the A-Class Review, great job on the article, and thanks for reviewing Deny Flight. Cool3 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"One encouraging aspect of the preparations was that reports from the Norwegian agents were promising. One agent reported: 'OK. Eureka tested. Three feet of snow only. Landing place close to road possible. Landing ground, five kilometres from dam, cannot be seen by Germans. No telephone at any farm in the area. Nice flat ground approximately seven hundred yards. No trees or stones" (Wiggan 50) Cool3 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu

Hmm, I think you misunderstood me and rushed a bit when you made such comments on my talk page. See my comments at AN/I. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Colossus

A good article does not mean perfect. You can always revert my edits, but think twice: I did not delete references, only redundancy where several sequential phrases were referenced the same. In these cases, a single reference at the end of the sequence or the paragraph is enough and much less tiresome for the reader.

Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 18:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Allegiance

Skinny87 Your comments re: allegiance, are accurate. I believe that MILHIST is a good starting point. I am afraid that we are going down the road of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Complete rubbish. A person's allegiance is to their country, unless they are a traitor. This English bias you are all trying to push is just too much. For example, Bernard Montgomery is shown as having allegiance to the United Kingdom. This is true. I find it also disgusting, as he had South African soldiers in his command and had no allegiance whatsoever to them. It confirms everything I have always believed about the English. Wallie (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87. It appears you don't like me. I can accept that. You are not objective, and are biased towards the English. Wallie (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, he's probably biased towards skinny people. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Skinny. It is not just you. There are a lot of people here who won't accept any criticism of England or the English. I try to be NPOV. It is an annoyance with Wikipedia. Of you get on to the Polish language page, everything is slanted towards Poland. Doesn't anyone have an objective view? Wallie (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Skinny. You say you want to work cooperatively with me, and start of by agreeing with EyeSerene's view of me, and his threats. I have always been reasonable. It seems that you seem to want to buy into the personal attacks of EyeSerene on me. Wallie (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming elections

Please give serious thought to standing for coordship in the upcoming elections. You'd be a real asset :) – Roger Davies ^talk 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here? – Roger Davies ^talk 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a doddle really, once you get the hang of it. If I can do it, I'm sure you can :))) – Roger Davies ^talk 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The coordinator election pages are now all set up. Feel free to nominate yourself here. — Roger Davies ^talk 07:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Xa Loi Pagoda raids

I've replied. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tahnks for that. I managed to find the date for Dinh's press confrence. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegiance

I saw your note. Yes, we need to get this sorted out. By the way, I did read my remarks. I am sorry to you personally. However, other people were diliberately trying to get me annoyed. I think we have to get this defined, as you said. I think allegiance means who you are fighting for in the military sense. In the case of Commonwealh pilots, they were fighting for their own country, not the United Kingdom. They othen joined the RAF, as their own country wanted to avoid red tape and get them helping out quickly. That is the fact of the situation. If you are from another country, and the United Kingdom gets credited with your efforts, that is unfair and also not correct. Wallie (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It really does have to be sorted out. I feel that it is a plain political argument. Pilots from other nations joined the RAF too, but retained their original nationality in allegiance. The Polish pilots mostly have an allegiance of Poland. Many just have the picture and no info box. There needs to be consistency in Wikipedia. I am naturally afraid that if I debate this point too much, I will be banned. However, I don't think it is right. Wallie (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "allegiance" is the crux of the argument, wherein its specific context in the infobox is to the military service, not the country of birth or the nationality of the individual. Other than rewriting the section in the template, there is already an established definition of terminology that users can refer to as they are adding information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

I don't agree. I think it depends on what country you are from. Allegiance is stronger than nationality. It is like re-writing history. For example, Cobber Kain is now being treated as British rather than New Zealand. This logic does not apply to more important pilots such as Billy Fiske, who has an allegiance of the United States, even though he too was in the RAF and no other service. Wallie (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on 13th Airborne Division (United States), Tetrarch (tank) and Operation Freshman, promoted to A-Class between November 2008 and March 2009, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject. Kirill [pf] 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deane-Drummond

Not a problem! I was thinking earlier I should find a nice short biography to write, get back in practice... the suggestion came at just the right time! Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Deny Flight

Hey, You participated in the peer-review for Operation Deny Flight a while back, and the article's now going through FAC. I was just wondering if you might interested in participating in that, either to support or leave any additional comments/issues with the article. Thanks! Also, good job getting Operation Freshman through the A-class review, planning to take it all the way to FA? Cool3 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Crete and Phyrric Victory

Churchill called it a Phyrric Victory, and a lot of references have copied this idea. I had a lot of relatives in this battle - my father and uncles. It was a bit like Saving Private Ryan, as they were all there. It was a horrible defeat, and my father never got over the shame of it. You have to understand this. I am being honest here. British people are lucky. You have never experienced defeat, and so could never understand it. Also, to call it Phyrric means the Germans lost nearly everything and gained a hollow victory. This is not true. Wallie (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

A reminder that the Manchester meetup is this Saturday. Hope to see you there! Majorly talk 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

coordinator elections

Not sure I am even entitled to vote, so perhaps I'm not the right person to spend time convincing. But, re the C-class thing which I don't think it proper to continue on the election page, My position is that having a C grade based on geting several of the B-grade marks may be better than nothing, but I am not happy with it. In particular I think the last three criteria by themselves (as used on some projects) guarantee very little except a set of properly spelled headings, an infobox and a picture. The one which matters for me is some degree of informative content. The rest are window dressing. Logically, I would give a C on decent content and none of the others. To me, this would give a purpose to the grade usefull to readers as well as editors. An informative but scrappy article. I am afraid I have always found the FA A GA B grades as absurdly overlapping and in need of culling to create a meaningful scale. Probably GA should be scrapped. What does it mean? If you are concerned with saving wasted effort, then perhaps sorting out this confusion of higher assessment schemes would be good? Sandpiper (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Start makes up around 50% of history articles, and stub 45%. B 4% and the higher grades 1%. The system is terrible at the bottom end in distinguishing articles, which I am certain make up the vast majority of reader hits on history articles. As i said before, what exactly are the features distinguishing a GA from an A or B? Sandpiper (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked the question was not so much to find out from you but to find if you knew, since you were professing an opinion that GA was useful. If you yourself don't know the exact meaning, how can you claim it is doing something useful? Before asking I checked the official definitions and frankly came away none the wiser as to exactly how GA helps us distinguish articles. So I don't know either. GA and FA were both separate assessment scales different from the ABstart scale originally, and remain so. The system is a mess of overlapping redundant effort. I came at this originally from the point of view that wiki readers need an assessment scale to tell them if an article is any good. The problem is, that any scale lumping 95% of all articles into the same two categories just isn't telling them much. I don't advocate creating lots of categories without some sensible grading distinction between them. However, the effect of policies such as that of the history project to insist upon ever stricter criteria has pushed down perfectly serviceable articles into the 'start' category. This was not the intention of the scale designers, and is still not their intention. C has been introduced to restore the balance somewhat. Having created the problem, history is resisting the solution. Sandpiper (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, perhaps enough of this, but this is an election for new coordinators who will be making policy. always best to find out before electing someone rather than after what they think. Sandpiper (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Skinny87 for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Operation Varsity - quite thorough, and utilizing a large amount of source material. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Reply to my IRC pointer plz? Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked if you wanted me to help with the article work that is occupying you so. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck

Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cockade

Hi Skinny, sorry about the long response time, but I have guests that I need to entertain. I have only about two references for Operation Cockade, but they each have about 30 refs total. Any questions, please respond here, or my talk page. TARTARUS ^talk 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Xa Loi Pagoda raids

Hi Skinny. I've replied to your follow-up comments. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TNA 2

Hi, the Cabinet Papers subsite is http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/ it's also worth looking at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/cabinetpapers.asp David Underdown (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/browse-refine.asp?CatID=30&searchType=browserefine&pagenumber=1&query=*&queryType=1 it says that you should be able to serach on catalogue reference by using the "Quick search2 box on the left of te page. You may also be interested in the Cabinet Secretary's notebook, which have also been released, unlike the official minutes, these are handwritten and actually attribute comments to individual ministers. The latest is avaialble (free) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/281.htm?WT.hp=nf David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hubert McNamara

Re. your offer to review the FAC, consider yourself pinged - many tks...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

It seems we have our thirteenth official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

C-class

I noticed that in your election comments you said that you would not oppose C-class if others felt it was desireable, and that you would not oppose it at all if it was done as an automatic process. Yet you have lodged a vote against its adoption. Does this not contradict your stated intention of going along with the view of others, or indeed not opposing it at all if automatic? Sandpiper (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that is having your cake and eating it. Making an election statement not to oppose something, and then opposing it. Most politicians wait until after elections before reneging on their election pledges! Sandpiper (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for George F. Hopkinson

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George F. Hopkinson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi, thanks for the George Hopkinson contribution Victuallers (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending [[Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism

I did not write anything that was not the truth. I was there in that unit and saw with my own eyes and talked with about 400 others that were there also. Brian J. Menes and Mervyn Jobe are infact two of the WORST leaders in the U.S. Army. Unless you were there who are you to question that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.249.209 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)