This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't think a separate article for Commodore, Flotillas (COMFLOT), is really required, but what do you think of mentioning him in the article as the designate seagoing battlegroup commander? Buckshot06(talk)06:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like a fair idea, the only problem is trying to dig up any sources! Will have a poke around to see if I can spot anything. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I had a look though the RAN website, but couldn't find anything relevant. Do you, by any chance, have any sources on this? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
no problem! I saw it twice, and realized once from you and once from Roger, and figured, okay, signals at the best of times can get crossed. :) I figured it would eventually disappear. cheers! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all! I shall take this opportunity to reflect upon the past year. In 2009 our project grew impressively, adding nearly 100 new featured articles and doubling the total number of featured lists. Overall the total number of articles within our scope surpassed 95,000 in 2009, and if these numbers hold steady we will surpass 100,000 articles in 2010. Thank you all for your outstanding efforts.
We are currently working on several proposals to improve the project for 2010. These include bringing the Milhist Academy up to full operational status, as well as spicing up and streamlining the task force structure. Also, any help you can offer to clear the current backlog of Military History good article nominations would be appreciated.
Coordinator Emeritus Kirill Lokshin has been re-elected to the Arbitration Committee for a two-year term in the 2009 elections. Kirill is one of four present or former coordinators of the project to be appointed to the Arbitration Committee; he was originally elected to a three-year term in 2007. The others are YellowMonkey (2007–2008), FayssalF (2008–2010), and Roger Davies (2009–2011).
The Contest Department has completed its thirty-second month of competition; and its fourth month under the new scoring system. A total of 45 articles were entered by seven editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 82 points, followed by Auntieruth55 with 74 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Ian Rose (51), Abraham, B.S. (21) and Parsecboy (16). Ed! and Binksternet also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the January contest.
Thank you. That is MUCH better than either of the predecessors. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) "the gramma was fine" - No, the grammar was incorrect. "and the wording better" - Irrelevant POV. "a significant proportion of bios/publications use similar wording." - Relevance? - A significant portion of the population use the phrases "youse guys" and "your wrong". However, that grammar is also incorrect. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Happy New Year to you, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Mmmmmmm. I prefer "later had", but at least it's not incorrect grammar. Another alternative you may prefer is "went on to have"? Pdfpdf (talk) And another: "subsequently had". Pdfpdf (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Re:Contest points
Happy New Year to you as well! The article improvement contribution for that article has been started (by yourself) at the level of stub class and has been promoted till A-Class during the first round. In the second round the article has been promoted from A to FA and according to Article Creation and Improvement Points table you get 18 more points for this. If all this happened in a single round, the points awarded for this contributions would raise from 27 points (to A) to 45 points (to FA). All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Well mate, this doesn't seem quite fair to me considering that I've checked the edit history of the article and it seemed that you did not make any major improvements during this round (only few tweaks). In my opinion the Article Improvement chart system should be applied throughout the contest and not only for individual rounds (plus I can assure you that the rule will apply for everybody in the same manner). If you don't agree with this feel free to start a new thread on the contest main talk page and we shall do as the majority of participants desire. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You should have no worries and be confident that I'll double check any article improvement submissions and the system will be applied consistently to anyone. However, if you find any mistakes keep noticing me. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, great minds... Richard Minifie was on my list of WWI aces but I hadn't made any start, the first two in my sights were in any case Edgar McCloughry and Alexander Pentland unless you were particularly keen on doing them (there's still Edgar Johnston of the +20 Australians but of course we can negotiate)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I did notice that we both seemed to be working through the list of Australian flying aces of the First World War. ;-) You're welcome to McCloughry and Pentland, the former of which seems to be completely up your ally being an AVM and all. In regards to Johnston, I'll just put my gloves on while you can ring the bell ... just kidding. :) I was thinking of possibly working on Cedric Howell soon, if you have no vested interest or were keen on working on it yourself, that is? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Your review of list of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients
Thanks for your review comments! If possible could you have a second look and let me know if this is progressing in the right direction. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I made the merge you suggested. It has a caveat now that I can't cope with at the moment (see A-Class review page). Please have a look. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Andrew Cowper
On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Cowper, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In fact prior to 1943 (or thereabouts) you had to have been mentioned before you were eligible for the DSO, so he must have been mentioend at least one. His RAF service record is online-I'll try to have a look next week that should mention all his honours (although it might not if he got it before the formation of the RAF - have you tried his Aussie service record?) - they normally give a date for the Gazette as well. Although forum posts aren't reliable sources you might find http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139769 interesting, and it will maybe point you toward a few more sources. David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Bingo, thanks tot he service record I was able to track down http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31106/supplements/287 (6 January 1919). If you look back to the first page of this supplement you'll see the actual despatch is dated 26 October 1918, before the DSO, but I can't quite work out how best to explain this in the article - we know the Mention and DSO must be for the same thing, but citing that might be tricky. You may find the rest of the record will help you a bit, so drop me a line if you want a copy. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, the only thing that comes to mind that needs to be clairfied is the emdashe bit you raised in your planning subsection of the review; cant for the live of me find anything remotely like that lol!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cedric Howell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Abraham. I am the main editor of the Horses in WWI article, and I just saw your reply to this request on NVOs talk page. If you have not already dropped a note to the other reviewer you mentioned, would you be willing to do that? NVO has (obviously) stepped down from the review, and it would be nice to get it moving again! Thanks in advance for you help. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A belated thanks for the note to Eurocopter. At this point I'm just hoping I can get this article to GA status at all, much less within the contest period :) Thanks again for your help, Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Self assessments
No problem, to be honest I didn't realize it was that big of a deal for the B class and below to self assess but I will be more mindful of that in the future. Here is a bit of a quandry though, I have recently been going through and cleaning up some of the assessments for the Medal of Honor recipients because there are a lot with problems (there were a lot that said stub that I made start and several that were at B that I downgraded to Start, etc). Since I am an active editor in ALL of the Medal of Honor recipients, that was probably inappropriate. If you find one that does not appear to rate B just let me know what its missing and I will see if I can get it up to speed. If your interested I have been building a couple pages to track the statuses of the Medal of Honor recipients (so its easier to work on them and get them promoted as well as add the ones that are missing) Here are the American Civil War recipients and Here are the rest (Not quite done here yet but I should be in the next week or so. I have also added notes to some of them that I plan to work on to get them to the next level. I also wanted to suggest something, I know that the milhist project doesn't use the C class but I think we really should. I have found quite a few that are assessed as start that to me are really much more than start, but also arent quite B. Here is one example Zenas Bliss--Kumioko (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, I doubt you'll find too many that don't have me as the primary editor but I will submit them to that link you gave me. If it becomes a major issue I will withdraw from the contest, the contest really isn't that big of a deal to me anyway and with the activity of some of the contetants, yourself included, its unlikely I will ever win anyway. To be honest I entered it more to increase the visibility of the articles that I edit more then me getting credit for editing it. In regards to the assessments I have made, by all means if someone feels that one of the articles doesn't meet the qualifications please remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been a away this week, I'll try to take a look next week. Tracking down the AFC recommendation probably falls over the line into OR. The documetns are (I believe) in existence and open to the public, but they're not indexed by name or anything, simply filed in batches according to when they were submitted, and organised by the RAF/RFC wing or brigade the squadron came under, so it would take quite a bit of hunting. The service records seem to simply record the Gazette date and page number. David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You recently voiced disapproval with displaying military images (such as I did with Smedley Butler) and referred to them as imaeg cruft. I have an alternate possibility, and although I personally do not agree this might be an accesptable alternative that is more encyclopedic. If you look at the article for Ross A. McGinnis the ribbons and badges are displayed in a table vice a visual display. What is your opinion on this? --Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
It's only a month into the New Year, and we've already made changes to the project's infrastructure, merging and improving several task forces (see below). Much content within the project's scope has also been improved: eleven new featured articles, two featured lists, two featured pictures, a featured sound, and seventeen A-class articles. Thanks and congratulations to all editors who contributed and/or nominated these items.
In other news, the elections for new project coordinators are coming up in March. Think about whether you would like to run or not, and self-nominations will be coming up at the beginning of next month.
Lastly, our project's A-class review process is desperately in need of new reviewers. Please consider looking at least one and leaving comments, no matter how small or trivial. It will be greatly appreciated by the article's nominator(s).
Our thanks go to all editors who participated in our recent task force housekeeping discussion and to EyeSerene who implemented the technical side of the approved changes. The new line up is as follows:
The Contest Department has completed its thirty-third month of competition; and its fifth month under the new scoring system. A total of 91 articles were entered by ten editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 152 points, followed by Kumioko with 98 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (87), Abraham, B.S. (48), Parsecboy (41), and Ian Rose (41). Binksternet, Radeksz, Ed! and D2306 also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the February contest.
Thanks for the return comment and it seems as though well just have to agree to disagree on this one. On the OR issue, I can add references to the ribbons, thats not a problem. --Kumioko (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Possible A class list
I was thinking about submitting a couple of the Medal of Honor lists for A class, but I wanted to ask for your advice first. There are three that I think are ok for A class that don't meet the criteria for featured yet.
) The main list List of Medal of Honor recipients is the first. I think it generally meets the criteria for A class but since it contains a number of forks for I wasn't sure if it would qualify.
Its bery helpful thanks. You should see the first of the three in the next couple days. Also, if you are interested the List for the Boxer rebellion recipients and Vietnam war recipients are in FLC review know. The hispanic recipients list will likely be next up. --Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
John S. Loisel ACR
I think I've addressed most of the issues, with one remaining question on awards.
Max-Hellmuth Ostermann has a similar awards section, without the images. I would like to keep this section if possible. Part of the problem is the references that I have on his awards are in summary form, without the citations or orders. I have requested information from the military, but I'm afraid that his records may have been destroyed along with thousands of others in the St. Louis fire in 1973.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abraham, B.S.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.png)
