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 was on Russ Shalders page and noticed this edit. I've noticed you do similar things before. I was wondering why you prefer the expanded version of the rank over the abbreviation? (I'm not unhappy about the change - somewhat indifferent, actually. I was just wondering ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pdf. I prefer the expanded variant as it looks more formal and professional. To me, the abbreviation just looks a little too messy and informal. I just went around a little while ago and made edits on several former and present senior ADF personnel in an attempt to make the succession boxes uniform. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"Hi Pdf." - Hi Bryce "I prefer the expanded variant as it looks more formal and professional. To me, the abbreviation just looks a little too messy and informal." - I'm not sure about the informal, but I agree that the "all capitals" convention used by the ADF looks messy - in my opinion, the British "LtGen" and "MajGen" looks much neater than the Oz "LTGEN" and "MAJGEN". (By-the-way, had you noticed that the British have changed usage from "Major–General" to "Major General"?) "I just went around ... " - Yes, I had noticed. Big job! Very diligent (and patient) of you to stick with it and complete it.
Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
linked ranks
Regarding edits like this one, why did you decide to delink (unlink?) the ranks?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. Reply here if it's easier for you - I have this page, and 2,500 others, on my watchlist.)
It is best not to over link, and in most cases the ranks in the succession boxes are already linked in the article. Also, it looks less attractive when the name is linked in conjunction with the person's name and creates (in my opinion) an unnecessary blue line. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Some people use windows that are A4-portrait size and shape; That's why there were line breaks between the rank and the person's name. With the line breaks removed, the line wraps in unpredictable places (i.e. where it wraps depends on how wide the reader's window is), and the result can be "less attractive". e.g.
Lieutenant General
Sir Arthur MacDonald
looks more attractive than
Lieutenant General Sir Arthur
MacDonald
(Even when they're centered, the first still looks better than the second.)
However, given that you've already done it to so many pages, ...
Well, it's time to go under the house and do the annual white-ant inspection.
(Sometimes I think I'd prefer to rent than own!)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The Hassett article was the only article that used the line breaks, and they were placed there by me as a compromise between the full rank and an abbreviation. I would prefer not to change it as all other succession boxes are presented in the same mannor (not just the ADF ones). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I put Percy Shaw Jeffrey up for both a WP:BIO and GA reviews. Seeing as though you did the original start class rating, I thought you might be interested.20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs)
Hey, Kirrages & I have dealt with several of the issues brought up in Prose, MoS & Neutrality. Feel free to check back in. One minor note, however - I'm currently away from my primary book collection (as I'm currently skiing;), and as such won't be able to address the "factual accuracy" or "broad in coverage" issues until Monday, January 5 (Australia-time, that is). If addressing them takes longer than expected, it is because I am not at my book-collection - my apologies. Cam(Chat)05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, We've addressed everything in the "Neutrality" section, the majority of the issues in "Well-Written", and all the issues in "Images". Would you be able to check back in so that we can know what we still have to do? Cam(Chat)19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate your help with this article. PS, I was also born on 10 September, although several years earlier. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Gazette have just completely changed their url scheme, the basic search page is now at http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search, I've just updated the template so everything should keep working, but you may need to force a purge of your cache to see the updated version, and if you spot any problems this may be the reason. For reference, the notarchive= parameter is no longer required. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Percy Statton
On January 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Statton, 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.
This month saw 14 military history-related articles promoted to featured status, the highest number for a single month since the project's establishment in October 2002. Congratulations all round!
Design competition Editors with design skills urgently needed to design an eyecatching logo for this newsletter. The logo needs to incorporate a bugle motif as well as the newsletter's title, "The Bugle". Fame and honour (a barnstar) guaranteed for the successful design. Submit entries here please.
Who will be the three "2008 Military historians of the Year"? There are 13 candidates so far and the number is rising rapidly. The winning editors will receive the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wikis; and all other nominees the WikiProject barnstar. To nominate editors you admire, or to cast your votes, please visit here!
A new drive has been started to identify the core topics of World War I with the aim of improving their quality before the centenary of the start of World War I in 2014.
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Harry Murray - quite a well done, well cited piece. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abraham, is Tom Derrick your next target for an A-class nom? I've got a copy of Peter Stanley's excellent book on the battle of Tarakan and can help out by expanding the section on his final battle and death. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've greatly expanded the section on Tarakan, and will add more tomorrow. Stanley doesn't say that Derrick commanded the defence after being wounded, and states only that he was in great pain from his wound and was placed behind cover where his runner stayed with him. Stanley doesn't comment on whether Derrick deserved another VC, but it is clear that he played the key role during the capture of the Freda position. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries - I live in Canberra, so it's no hassle to take photos of medals at the AWM. Let me know if you'd like photos of the medals of other VCs. I had a look in the WW2 gallery while I was there, and while there's a small section on Derrick in the part of the exhibition on the 1943 New Guinea offensive which includes a photo of him and an account of how he won the VC, I couldn't spot the portrait. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The AWM has a policy of regularly rotating most items so that they're not always on display, so the painting may have been put into storage between when the ADB entry was written in 1993 and today - or I just might not have looked in the right place! (there are some portraits of VC winners in ANZAC Hall, and I didn't check there). Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Both are from Stanley - I'll fix this up. I'm enjoying this collaboration by the way (especially as I rarely work on biographies). Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate. While I'm not averse to succession boxes, I deliberately didn't employ one on Clare Stevenson as I considered it a bit dubious/redundant. Bell appears to have been regarded only as "temporary director", not even as "temporary Director", if you see the subtlety, i.e. the office of Director may not even have existed prior to Stevenson (all sources treat her as "first Director WAAAF"). Also, while Stevenson left before the WAAAF was disbanded, her 'successor', Wing Officer Audrey Herring, seems also to have only been in 'effective charge' of the branch in her role in Directorate of Personnel Services, again not Director WAAAF per se (not even "acting" or "temporary"). Leave it for now, as I'll double-check this in a library source next week, however if it is as I believe it to be then I think it's better to remove the box as it'd be a bit misleading. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you're cool about it, I might do things the other way round and remove it now, then re-add with her successor as Director if there was in fact one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's as I surmised above. What it means effectively is that Stevenson was not simply the first but the only Director WAAAF as such, so we can continue to leave the article sans succession box. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Abraham, B.S.. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm not seeing anything much except the "see also" thing on some VC pagees and whether it is redundant or not. What is the problem? I get on well with Pdfpdf and can't see how this got so testy so quickly? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Abraham, B.S.. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your many valuable contributions to the project as an active reviewer, a thoughtful contributor to Milhist discussions, a fine content contributor, and a gentleman. For the coordinators, EyeSerenetalk12:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the stupid things government related departments do ... I was just kind of hoping someone would upload one of those new images over the one in the infobox as I find them more appealing. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. A much stronger fair use claim can also be made on the photos of Donaldson wearing his VC - it seems probable that he'll eventually appear at public events, but it's unlikely that he'll be wearing the medal. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He will probably be "paraded" around a bit by the government to boost support for the troops serving overseas etc, but, yeah, very doubtfull he will be wearing his VC during all this time. Also, these official photographs will no doubt be a lot more appealing than a half blurred, side on photo taken at a public event. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above. What about one of the photos from the ceremony? They have a bit more "life" in them than the "official portraits". (e.g. I like _006 "Mr Keith Payne VC congratulates Trooper Mark Donaldson" and the family shots _012 and _013.) However, none of the photos on that page are of just him - is that an issue? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that one of the photos at [1] should be uploaded to replace the current one. My personal favorite is the last one in which he's wearing full ceremonial SASR uniform and isn't trying to suppress a grin. An iron-clad fair use statement can be made for using any of these images given that its hugely unlikely that he'll ever appear in public wearing all his medals. A photo of the ceremony could also be included in the article - as this was closed to the public (and probably involved other serving SF personnel who can't be identified) no free images will ever become available of this historic event. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, that is also my preferred photo. If we are able to safely upload that image with no hassles, then I think it should be done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right - in general, reviews should only be initiated by editors who've made a significant number of edits to the article and (more importantly) are willing and able to edit the article in response to reviewers' comments. I don't think that it matters much in this instance though given that the article is probably at A-class and I'm around to respond to comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The main thing I don't like about such nominations is an editor trying to "ride" off the efforts of another, but, in this case, if it is okay with you then that's fine. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that this nomination was in good faith (and will make sure that I get points towards an A-class medal ;) ). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
More than likely it was, but it doesn't hurt to be weary. ;-) Lol, that was my main concern in this case actually; that he would get the credit and the "notch" towards the A-Class Medal rather then you. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about whether Whitehead should have CdG after his name - his record on the AWM's website includes this. On the other hand, I know nothing about this kind of thing! Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And it's been passed. Congratulations, another fine article of yours! Do you intend to do articles for all VC winners, or perhaps just those from WWII? Skinny87 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
FAC comments addressed...
I think we've addressed all your concerns in the West Point FAC. If you would be so kind as to mark off everything you feel we have addressed and/or make further comments so we can fix them, it would be appreciated. Furthermore, if all of your concerns have been addressed, your Support!vote would be appreciated. — BQZip01 —talk00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
McNamara
Hi mate, do any of your VC references happen to mention where Frank's is? The current list of those on display at AWM doesn't include it, though one or two web pages I've seen dated a few years ago suggest it was there once. If you have no info I'll email AWM to double-check anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks a lot for the barnstar. Your help was invaluable to its progress. Only challenge left now is to find the next article eh? :) » \ / (⁂) 06:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, take it, use it, whatever. You'd get more use out of it than me anyway! Thanks for the link to, will definitely be useful. » \ / (⁂) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cat sort
Re this: Thanks.
(Hotcat doesn't sort them. Or at least, I can't work out how to get it to do so. Which I find rather detracts from the value of Hotcat ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Abraham, I had a look at Arthur's book, (Symbol of Courage; Men behind the Medal) and it states he was posthumously awarded the medal. I think the confusion comes from the fact that he died 6 days after the actions for which he was awarded the medal, though he died of injuries sustained during the gallant acts. As such he is a posthumous recipient as covered in our VC lists and I have amended the OZ VC list accordingly. Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I'm not sure I agree. I will continue the discussion there; it get's messy having the same conversation distributed over several places. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No. I cant see any answers to these:
Abraham, B. S. (or anyone else, for that matter): I'm awaiting a response.
In particular: Are "Order of Precedence" and "Order of Wear" the same thing, or two different things?
We have references to "Order of Wear" for both UK & Oz. Do we have any references to "Order of Precedence"?
Where have the Oz gov (and/or the UK gov) specified that VC and GC are the same order of precedence?
Guys, it might be better if you avoided direct communication if you're finding it difficult to be civil (I'm not saying that anyone is in the wrong here, or elsewhere, just that the above discussion seems a bit more tense than is justified. It's worth noting that discussions can get lost in the military history project's very busy main discussion page.). Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged into whatever Pentland's most common name is. I suggest that you take this up on the article's talk page in the first instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my carelessness causing you extra work. The two articles should be merged. However, due to the info box, citations, and extra facts in my version, I think it should be the survivor.
This is not an ego thing. If the situation were reversed, I would still go with preservation of the most informative article.
The easiest way to do this would be to copy and paste the content of the new article into the old article and then convert the new article into a redirect. WP:MERGE might be of assistance. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OZ GCs
Hi there, happy to take a look. First issues I see are:
The dates don't sort properly, you need to use either {{sort}} or a manual fix such as the one I use on the VC recipients lists: <span style="display:none">1900-01-01</span>1 January 1900
You don't need the sorting feature on the notes columns: Use class="unsortable"|Notes
You have a lot of recipients who are highlighted as posthumous, but don't have an asterisk.
Per our accessibility guidelines you cannot have colour being the sole indicator of important information. As such, you need another way to highlight the Albert medal exchanges etc, possibly in a column? or in the notes section?
The military colour is too close to the exchange colour, they are indistinguishable.
You need specific days for the retrieval dates in the footnotes.
Note that the class=unsortable goes in the table header so: !Name!!Date of action!!Organisation!!Summary of action(s)!!class="unsortable"|Notes (Putting it in the actual table does nothing.) Woody (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Added here from User talk:Abraham, B.S./Sandbox/Draft2
Saw you request on Woody's page, so thought I'd muscle in. Looks a pretty good start. One thing though that immediately springs to mind is that you are using colour alone to identify certain things. Remember that the reason we use both a colour and an asterisk is for accessibility, not everyone can distinguish colours, so you need to add a similar identifying symbol. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
On February 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Bagot, 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.
Gatoclass 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Derrick
I've simplified 27/8/43 a bit. According to his service record, he was discharged from hospital, re-joined brigade, sent to 3/48, then sent to 2/48. The bit about 3/48 is probably too much information :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Abraham, B.S., I apologize for not consulting with you before nominating it for FL. I'm not that familiar with the FL process. I was busy with my friends when I made that nomination! I'm familiar with the DYK process and the FA process, but I've never been deeply involved with the FL process. When you try something new, you're bound to make some mistakes. Anyway, I hope it becomes an FL!
BTW, glad to know that you're an Australian. I'm interested in Aussie-related topics, and I look forward to working with you on WP! Cheers, mate! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You reverted my edits to Arthur Bagot. I've some issues:
Most of these methods are per consistancy both within the article and with "my" other articles. Also, this is per my style of editing. Yes, wikilinks should only be used the first time something is mentioned, but this is done for consistancy. The addition of "Australia" is probably not necessary, true, however this is again done per both consistacy and my style of edititing. I think the placement of the "Later life" section is also justified, as his most notable period was the First World War, and anything after that is, realisticly, later life; again, this is also done per consistancy with my editing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the six-monthly Coordinator elections will take place in March for the April-September term. If you want to become more involved in the project, now's the time to start thinking about it!
Following extensive discussion, the structure of the A-Class Medal System has been changed to include three new medals: The A-Class Medal with Oak Leaves, the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves and Swords, and the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds, each of which is respectfully awarded after 5, 10, and 20 groups of three A-Class Articles.
The number of our A-Class articles grew by more than 25% during this month, compared to the total number of A-Class articles existent at the end of December.
A drive is underway to identify the core topics of World War I with the aim of improving their quality before the centenary of the start of World War I in 2014.
A Survey is currently underway to determine how MilHist's processes, logistics, and management can be improved.
Abraham, B.S. has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his many valuable contributions to the project as an active reviewer, a thoughtful contributor to military history discussions, a fine content contributor, and a gentleman.
The Contest department has completed its twenty second month of competition, which saw 62 entries. The top scorer this month is Bellhalla with 93 points followed by Abraham, B.S. with 52 points. Cam, Georgejdorner and 11 other editors also fielded entries. Bellhalla remains the overall leader with 687 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Abraham, B.S. gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Thanks for the update. No probs on the time front. Know what you mean by time management issues for wiki. Currently dont have PC at home. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Abraham, I should be able to take another detailed look tonight, or tommorrow. From a quick look the lead needs a bit of work, and some of the colours might need tweaking. In terms of my sandbox, edit away, I meant it when I say you can edit it, especially when it concerns you ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother with JonCatalan, I've already spent 30 minutes going through his articles and am about 10 minutes from putting his nom on the page. -MBK00405:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On February 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Chalmers, 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.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the page. I wanted to let you know I have made progress on your recommendations. The only one I believe I have remaining at this point is obtaining the names of the two army commanders that disagreed with the continuation of the campaign. I will see if the official British history has anything to say on the matter. please let me know if additional work needs be completed. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good. I actually looked through a couple more books on Derrick, but was unable to find anything worth adding. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Userbox for GA reviews
The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using
{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}
Hello. Firstly, thanks for the triple crown nomination, and your support in my RfA. It's been a busy week! I was ready to get back into editing the Frederick Birks page and I noticed that the AIF Project site you gave me, and Birks' entry have disappeared. I can only get the projects main page via Google Cache. Are you experiencing this problem? Thanks (I'm watching this page) • \ / (⁂) 05:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
