en User talk:Skinny87 Archive4

No. 3 Commando/Messenger book

Hi Skinny, thanks for your input at the ACR for No. 3 Commando. I don't have a copy of Messenger so I'd certainly appreciate anything that you might be able to add to the article if you can find time to get to it. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reference Desk query

Actually, the Wilson government did face budget difficulties. See my response to your query. I'm posting here too in case you had given up hope of finding what you wanted. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert

I noticed your comment at User:Georgewilliamherbert's talk page. From my (limited) experience with him, he seems to misuse both his administrative tools and "authority", making threats, making people jump through hoops for him (while not making the most basic of efforts to research things he is involved in or back up his claims), and generally ignoring/deflecting criticism about his behavior (then disappearing when the argument against him becomes overwhelming). Would you support a user RFC or something similiar? Some guy (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation on WWII collage removal and replacement

Thanks for your observation on the collage. I didn't consider that an earlier available one might be "plug compatible", but it proved to so. Much appreciated, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C14 Timberwolf review

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review my article. A few questions;

How do you upload a picture!
I didn't think grammar was that bad
I thought I had referenced all points which could be challenged
and finally what does this mean "is practically a coatrack of an article without more information"

I just want to try and improve the article but I need to know exactly where I need to improve it.

Thanks Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open 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 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoslavery

Please let me know why you reverted my edit re neoslavery. Every assertion is factual and sourced. To, incidentally, a Pulitzer-winning book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the single minute between my restoring my edit and your removing it due to so-called vandalism, you could not have possibly read what I wrote. Your reversion therefore was in bad faith, and I would appreciate your leaving work alone until you have (a) read it and (b) have a valid basis for changing or deleting it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Bomb

I've passed this as a GA - congrats! Out of interest, one GA writer to another, what do you think of Attorney General for England and Wales? Worth putting up? Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on GA status for Sticky bomb. Personally, I think the article still needs some work for which I don't have the time or inclination myself. See the article on Stuart Macrae (inventor) for some links and Winston Churchills Toy Shop is an essential reference. I have left some comments at Talk:Sticky bomb Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey there

No worries, I don't take any of that personal. I understand your point of view. I just want to add though that I was recently backed up by Kumioko that WikiProject Military history states the awards most of my subjects have received make them notable enough for an article. See the talk page for Stephen Faatz for more. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 12 September 2009

Thanks!

I appreciate the cleanup. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 21:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Gun

I've reviewed it at Talk:Smith Gun/GA1. Best, Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also reviewed the Northover Projector at Talk:Northover projector/GA1 - suggest you look at them Smith Gun first, Northover second, some bits carry over from one to the other. Best, Ironholds (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy being a girl

Northover Projector

Northover Projector and Smith Gun both passed as GAs. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Dept

Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M22 Locust

Hey. Quick question about the sentence The War Office chose the Tetrarch light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong, as a decision had recently been made that light tanks were no longer to be used in the British Army. If the decision was made so that light tanks were no longer to be used, how come a light tank was selected to be part of the squad? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request!

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

AshLin (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review

Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article on the Dutch pacification campaign on Formosa - your suggestions have made a positive contribution to the quality of the article and I'm very happy to see it reach GA status!

Taiwantaffy (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

Hi Skinny, thanks for tagging that attack page, but may I suggest you consider using the generated template to warn the author? That way they know why their page was deleted, and just as importantly their subsequent edits are more likely to be scrutinised by hugglers etc. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox

Hi, could you please remove categories from your sandbox? It's beingn put into category tree. thanks. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waddy and Airborne Ops

Please feel free, the more info the merrier (just don't put any Categories in yet!) I've got to add some info about Arnhem and his pre and post SAS roles and then that'll kinda be it. On the subject, I've been wondering what to call his page. Looking at the page for John Waddy there appear to be a few other Waddys linking to it (WWI pilot, Australian politician). I was going to make John Waddy a disambig page and link to this John Waddy, but do you think I should go for John Llewellyn Waddy or John Waddy (Soldier)? I've only seen his middle name used in one instance so it isn't exactly common, but might be preferable to adding brackets to his name.

The GA topic looks good. I'd be inclined to include Operation Thursday - it's not of the same nature as the rest, but seems to meet all the criteria of an airborne op. As for Arnhem, yeah, I'd agree with using this instead of MG. Some might say that Browning's HQ element at Nijmegen qualifies, especially as its regarded as a criticism of the strategy, but it was a small element when put next to 3 divisions of infantry. To me it makes more sense to not include a small Brit element rather than include a large American element in the category, if you see what I mean. Arnhem is getting ready for a GA nom, after that I was thinking of getting a peer review. I agree that sadly MG is going to take a lot more work, and might not get there... Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed another Waddy - Peter Waddy from memory, and a distant relative of John. Out of interest, the quote you've added about double timing to the bridge, does that apply to Peter or John? I'd thought 156 Battalion's mission was to the north of the town. Cheers for all the input though! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a copy of Thompson I'm afraid Skinny, but I am a little curious about it. Are you quite sure all of the info is about John Waddy? It's just that every source I've looked at agrees that 4th Brigade's original objective was to secure the north of Arnhem. Grave bridge was about 20 miles and 3 rivers south of their dropzones and was captured by troops of the American 504 Regiment, who landed a little closer! Even Arnhem bridge was 10 miles away and was supposed to have already been captured (Peter Waddy's battalion was charged with rushing there). The stuff about their plane getting hit may be true, but (perhaps because the bridge thing has made me sceptical) Waddy doesn't mention it in any other sources (including direct quotes in Middlebrook, his own book, or on the written and audio archives on paradata). He does mention the radio though! A plane flying alongside was hit, and he describes it cartwheeling into the ground, could this be what Thompson means? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice working with you too by the way! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that bit about the landing (upturned faces and all) is pretty standard text for Waddy,and I have just found a quote saying they were hit in the tail! My bad - especially as its in his own book! But I might reword it slightly so that its clear they received damage just before dropping. I'm pretty certain the Grave bit is way way wrong!

As for the assault on the bridge, I think I may have worked it out. I'm pretty sure that the bit about double timing to the bridge refers to 11 Btn who were despatched on the heels of the south staffs (the glider party Thompson refers to) in a change from the original plan. I suspect Thompson has mixed a few details up, and the quote attributed to Powell refers to Peter Waddy (3rd Btn along with Frosts 2nd Btn were meant to make straight for the bridge on day 1). Powell was 156 Btn C Coy commander, so I'd have thought anything John Waddy was doing he'd be doing too. All the flak gun and sniper stuff is correct. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think everyone does it. Even Ryan wrote his events up in a more dramatic fashion. Reading his take on people like Robert Henry Cain or Lionel Queripel, you only find out from other sources that he's grouped together events that were days or miles apart. Anyway, I'm conspiring with Ian Rose to make a double whammy on DYK, so we should be able to upload in about a week. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Well done Skinny, looks really good. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to illustrate the LCA Page?

Dear Skinny87,
I'm working on the LCA page (first Wikipedia interaction I've ever had). I don't know how to do pictures. Would you be willing to lend a hand, please? There has just been included in the Wikicommon a photo of combined ops personnel sitting in the well of an LCA. I thought this would look groovy in the Design section. Anyway, sorry to be presumptuous, but I'd love to see more pictures to go with the article I'm fiddling with. Thanks.AmesJussellR (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link

Dear Skinny87,
File:British LCA commandos.jpg
Thanks. Also, if you look on the LCA discussion page you'll see some more candidates. Best regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Pictures!!

Dear Skinny87,
The illustrations really do add to clarity. Thanks much. Best regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New one

While we wait on Ian Rose before launching an airborne assault on the main page, I thought we might need to recruit a few more men. Was wondering if you fancied working together on my latest project (I'm pretty sure he's notable enough, and there are a few redlinks to him scattered about). Ranger Steve (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Flanders horse murderer eh? Very good article, well done (I presume this one was quicker than the last?). Incidentally I notice one of the refs is a Victor Dover - there was a Major Victor Dover at Arnhem, C Coy (off the top of my head), 2nd Battalion, so he might mention Digby (although obviously he never got to General so he might not qualify for his book!) Ranger Steve (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier Pip Hicks is the first name that spring to mind. Lt Col David Dobie as you said as well. I'm sure there's some others. I've often though Graeme Warrack might deserve his own article. Den Brotheridge might be able to use some work do you think? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds eh? I can help on Pip Hicks, lets see who gets onto it first (I'm guessing you). Ranger Steve (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I've noticed. Lots of it seems to be block copies from Ryan on occasion too. I only use it if it's backed up by another source, and then only to avoid me overusing that main source. At least I hope I have! There's a great line about Warrack in Waddy's bio that I haven't used cos it's only in Ryan as well, but doesn't tie in with any other sources... Same when I rewrote lots of Robert Cain. It's a good guide but like you say, you've got to be wary. I only used it twice in the whole Arnhem article. Just used it above cos all the bios are in one place! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid I've not got anything on Poett except the usual mentions in D-Day books, but I'll let you know if I come across anything. Best of luck with that Martini... Ranger Steve (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

thar. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, mein herr :P. Give me a prod with the next one you write - I'd suggest that gammon bomb needs work. Ironholds (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MA22

Thanks Skinny, I'll have a look. Comes from teaching in Japan and hours spent trying to copy edit English essays that I couldn't even understand the meaning of, let alone correct... (shudder) Ranger Steve (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it does read that way. Just thought I'd see if I could remove any possible risks of people thinking it meant: Light tanks obsolete>Tetrarchs obsolete>Suitable for Airborne Forces! Good article btw Ranger Steve (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Have you got any examples out of interest? As for an airborne guideline (have you got a link for the academy drive?), I'd be happy to help if I can, but if you and I are the only people interested in airborne..... who'll read it? lol Ranger Steve (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gathered a not inconsiderable library of books, but unfortunately the majority date to an era before man had learnt to fly. Ancient history being my main thing means that my hobby subject library is slightly smaller (although still bigger than your average person's I guess). I do however have a lot of other military books out from the local library on very long term loan (they make it so easy now, I can renew on line in a flash, some of them I've had out for 10 months!). I've thought about doing a library, but as I don't own the books yet it seems a bit cheeky (although I'm slowly replacing the library books). But that said, I know which books are good for sources so I can just stick together a recommended reading list I guess (I should at least do it for the ancient history ones) - when I have the time. Real life is going to keep me busy for the next couple of weeks (with a real life Milhist project), but I do get to make a trip to the Imperial War Museum next week!

Can I edit away in your academy sandbox? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Double Waddy is go, just so you know. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Flavell

You sure he was awarded the MM? MM was for other ranks only - the MC was the officers version...? Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor display issue

Hi. On Talk:Frederick Birks, point 7 of the GA Review displays as:

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px]]

I see that its display on Talk:Frederick Birks/GA1 is identcal. (The raw text is: ''Pass/Fail'': {{GAList/check|{{{7}}}}} )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Times archive access

Saw your comment on RangerSteve's page, remember, if you can't get down the library, I ahve free access to the archive via work, and can probably send you througha pdf copy of articles (though I'm going to be away for a bit shortly). David Underdown (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just drop me an email to remind me of your address, and I'll send it over later? David Underdown (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edwin Flavell

On October 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin Flavell, 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)} 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.

Gatoclass 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for British airborne operations in North Africa

On October 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British airborne operations in North Africa, 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)} 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.

\ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnhem

I've been planning to get it to GA soon, there are always just a few tweaks I want to make first! I've got a tiny bit more info (mainly on the intelligence debacle) to add after reading Then and Now: Operation Market Garden and then I'll nominate it. Should be about next week. The dream is to get it to FA! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I copied before I gave up were: Tuxedo, Wastage, Reinforcement, Wild Oats, Lucky Strike, Beneficiary, Swordhilt, Raising Brittany, Hands Up, Transfigure. Tuxedo would have just used 4th Para Bde, the rest the entire 1st Division, Transfigure would have also used the Polish Bde and 52nd Div. There's 7 pages (p16-22) in Then and Now, 1 large table list's all of these ops, including name, location, forces, date planning started and (for about half of them) a planned date of commencement. Some would also have used American divs from memory. Some never got beyond planning, some had the paras on the planes before they were cancelled or postponed. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've already seen there's the Arnhem Project to work through. It's just a list of things to dabble in when the inclination takes me, although it would take some work to get them all up to GA... Likewise with Arnhem I'll keep plugging at that, then ther's the articles in my sandboxes. I've got to get on with some ancient history articles too, been slack at that. Incidentally, if you think Arnhem is up to B class, do you want to assess it on the talkpage? I would, but it's probably not good form of me to self assess! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that, I may upgrade it tomorrow, can't see any problems doing so. I'm going on a short hol in a few days, so feel free to copy the campaignbox out of my sandbox if and when you like. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

Hi, Skinny87. Please see Talk:World War II#incorrect file.--Bukubku (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Elephant Point

On October 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Elephant Point, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats^(?)) 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.

Thanks! Note:Halloween DYK is limited to top 32 articles ;-) Victuallers (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Hill

Hi Skinny. I was just over having a look at James Hill (British Army officer), and noticed you hadn't included any London Gazette entries as sources, so I went and ran a few quick searches. Just from two basic seaches I got quite a few relevant hits, and thought they might be of some use to you. There is this one (8 hits), which is just of his full name, and this (11 hits), his surname and service number. There are no doubt a few more out there if you want to have a look. Anyway, good luck with the GA review, though I don't see you having much trouble as it does appear to be an excellent article. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Fogg

Since you commented on the talk page of that interesting article: there is further discussion of this on User_talk:Durova#Hoax articles, as well as on my user talk page. --JN 466 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

operation totalize

its not unsourced. this are the same information like in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Waddy (British Army officer)

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Waddy (British Army officer), 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)} 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.

{{User0|Giants27 09:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Theirs is the Glory

I'm curious Skinny, does Baynes have much to say about the roles in the film? It's a struggle to get much info on it nowadays (there's an After the Battle issue I want to get hold of), and I've seen various numbers of participants mentioned - from 100-200 (I went for 100 'cos I saw that at the Airborne Museum I think), although never as many as 400. Don't doubt it, just wondering if there's much more information you might have.

BTW, put Battle of Arnhem up for GA. Saw Operation Doomsday there as well - do you think it's ok for me to review it, or would that 'poor form' in the world of GA? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, don't worry, I wasn't hoping for a review in return! (although if you read it then perhaps Arnhem would become clearer for you?). I just wanted to check in case it's preferred for reviews to be done by editors who don't know each other. As for Theirs is the Glory, like I said I have no reason to doubt it. No 2 sources agree on figures, so until I actually get the movie, or the After the Battle issue that includes the 'making of' then I'm not going to worry about it. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think it could get to GA, but I've got to admit I've not had much luck looking for sources - that's why I leapt on the possibility you might have some more info in Baynes! Admit though that I haven't looked through Google Books. That'll be the next project after this raft of GA noms. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for James Hill (British Army officer)

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Hill (British Army officer), 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)} 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.

Sponsored by "Halloween Hooks R us" Victuallers (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on putting together this article! Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I saw this on DYK, checked the history and blinked when I saw the expansion's extent. What a life story. --an odd name 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks the both of you! I started it off as a bare-bones biography, as I do with most of the British airborne commanders, but it just got longer and more detailed as I found stuff to add in. And he certainly deserved the expansion; anyone who takes on multiple tanks with nothing more than a revolver deserves to be recognized! Skinny87 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commando and Airfix

Hehe, snap. Like most people raised pre Playstation, a healthy diet of Commando Comics (along with the slightly inferior War Picture Library, Battle, Air Aces etc...) an army of 1:72 figures, tanks, Airfix kits etc... lots of war movies, a junior school playground with all manner of APC's parked behind it and later on living on Salisbury Plain, all made me interested in military. Airborne in particular... well, they had the coolest uniforms. A Bridge Too Far is an amazing film in my opinion, so the Arnhem bit came from there. I know quite a bit about the 2nd World War, but Airborne is the most interesting. Never thrown a commando comic away either! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation Doomsday

On October 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Doomsday, 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)} 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.

Gatoclass 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday

		'Getting the Double' Barnstar
		For getting an article to GA and DYK within hours of each other, and general all round article expandingness. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Creating a Diff link is actually pretty easy. You can start from an individual's contributions page (easy) or a page's revision history (annoying).

To grab a diff from someone's contribs, you literally just click the (diff) link to the left of the contribution date (or right-click→Copy Link Location in Firefox)- the URL of that page is your diff.

From a page's history takes a little longer. You have to select the To and From revisions and click Compare Selected Revisions at the top of the page. Again, the URL is your diff.

If you're not already using Popups, I'd highly suggest it. Rolling the mouse over the (diff) link on contribs pages displays a small version of the delta columns- great for determining which diff it is you need to grab.

Hope that helps! --King Öomie 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)

Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWI

Skinny87, I am more than willing to assist on the WWI article - I have lots of reference material / sources covering the Western Front and Middle East. However, I think a team effort is needed, with different people covering different campaigns and political domains, because the scope is just so wide. Maybe you could invite more "formal" support from further editors, particularly for the less well reported campaigns and then you coordinate the overall effort so that we don’t produce contradictory text and duplicated references. For example, I strongly suspect that User:Jim Sweeney has a solid knowledge of WWI Middle East, User:Eurocopter of the Caucasus and probably Eastern Front, User:Mkpumphrey of East Africa etc (and there are many more!). I see no harm in asking editors such as these to assist on a specific domain. Thoughts? Farawayman (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make a request/proposal on the MilHist Talk section, and I will strongly support! And I am sure others will too. ...and, getting editors to cover sub-topics which they enjoy / are comfortable with, ensures significantly higher quality! Farawayman (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skinny87. You have new messages at LeadSongDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LeadSongDog come howl 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field

TNA has the recommendations for his OBE and Bronze Star Medal - they're a bit more routine than some. The normal sleuthing through the Gazette would support the basic details of his career as usual. Don't know of anything else off-hand though. It's still only a few days since his death, so more obits may yet turn up. David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These [2][3] offer some useful background, arguing for that they're RS might be interesting though. I think there have been some books on the auxilairy units recently, so that might be the best bet. David Underdown (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mecha

Re the conversation on the other page, it is an ARTICLE ABOUT FICTIONAL WORKS, very few things which could be called "real mecha" exist, so it is going to be full of mentions of fictional works. It would be like an article on heavier than air flying machines in 1870, all full of fictional works because at the time no man had flown yet. I feel you to be honest lack general knowledge in this source area, as your Anglo-Centric approach shows. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cain

Hey Skinny, was just wondering if you were still interested in reviewing our friend Bob, and if not do you mind if I remove your name from the WP:GAN page? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should probably have done that! From memory I tidied it that same day but then forgot about it. Does that section look ok now? Ranger Steve (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but don't worry if that jab starts kicking in - there's no rush! Ranger Steve (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skinny, cheers for the review. Had a short wikiabsence, but I'll tackle it soon. BTW, don't know if you watch Time Team at all, but they're excavating on Shooters Hill at the moment. They've excavated a Blacker Bombard position and demonstrated a Boys anti-tank rifle. If you miss it you might be able to catch it on 4+1 or 4ondemand. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoon

I have finished the strategy section. (Strategy, blechh) Do you think it is too long? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your action at User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hi. I realise you did what you thought was for the best, and I assure you that I acted for the same reason. As I said in both my edit summary and the hidden comment, Jimbo's talkpage traditionally is the last resort of those who believe there is no other avenue to air their concerns. As long as the post is not vandalism, trolling, or pure nonsense I believe that it should stay until the page "owner" decides to reply, ignore or remove. For that reason I reverted you and restored the content. I hope I have explained my actions to your satisfaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise for good faith actions; you may be right and I wrong! Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Awards

		The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
		This WikiCup Award is presented to Skinny87 for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew ^talk at 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baskeyfield

Cheers Skinny. Best book so far has been Battleground Europe by Steer (a massive 4 small pages!), otherwise it's just single paragraphs in most other books (getting used to this with Arnhem vets now). I'll flesh out the section on his actions next, but I really think that'll be as far as I can go. Found your library, thanks (also got my fist Harclerode book yesterday, bargain at £3!). Noticed that thing at Tonga, but I haven't finished reading your version yet. I'll try and have this finished by the time you get back though! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Although flicking through it I thought it looked a bit dry and factual! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've done all I can with Baskeyfield now, but if you should find any more info on your travels through your books, do whack it in there. I've put a request at Talk:Stoke-on-Trent for an image of his statue, so that would finish it off nicely. Doing a quick count, I think this meets 5x expansion for DYK, don't you? Ranger Steve (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'd forgotten Britain at War existed! Cheers Skinny, I'd never have spotted that, gonna have to get them both I think. I'm going to shove Baskeyfield up for DYK I think, I'm pretty sure it meets 5x prose expansion (if you count the citation).

BTW, I think some comments directed at you recently might have been a little rough. Operation Tonga is a fine article even now, and with more detail could probably easily become featured. I don't agree that you'd need to learn another language to write an article on a major battle at any rate! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grayburn. Annoyingly there's lots of good info on him on Pegasus archive and on a BBC chat page... not exactly good refs, but seemingly accurate. David Lord looks like he'll have the same probs. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant BBC chat pages for Lord. There's a rugby club's home-page for Grayburn. I really should do Tatham-Warter first though, I so easily get distracted. Any help on Lord would be well appreciated though. I can fill in the Arnhem bits if you can do his India and D-Day career! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, just recalled that the book you have is The RAF at Arnhem. Not a very good exchange I guess! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatham Warter and Grayburn? Both 2nd Parachute Battalion. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Skinny87 - thanks for your edits on Roland Griffiths-Marsh. It looks a lot spiffier now! Jasper33 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grayburn

Thanks Skinny. I'd thought once I got rid of the tag by adding the permission that would do, but I've added a source now as well. As for the date... I try to put it in when I know it, but I've no idea on this particular image. I'd assumed though that the upload date was ok, purely because wiki automatically puts 5 tildes into that space when I upload an image. Any thoughts on what to do? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if your book does contain any of Lord's early career, it'll be most welcome at the page. I've just had to fact tag most of it until I can find a source, but I don't want to delete it. Unless you think that BBC link would suffice? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And following up the name of the author on that page, it appears Lord may be Welsh?! Ranger Steve (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Skinny87. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Multiple_authors.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ResMar 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queripel

I don't know Skinny, this looks suspiciously like an attempt to get your name above mine in the maintained box! Only joking, that would be great stuff. I, as usual, have a fair bit about his Arnhem role but less about his time with the Royal Sussex. One problem I've already noticed is that there doesn't seem to be a reliable date for his death. It would appear the Germans captured him and he died a few days later, but no specific date is given. Interesting that you volunteer at an old fort, I volunteer at Fort Victoria! I never get round to updating its entry though, wanna finish the book I'm writing about it first. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, awesome, we're less than a hundred miles apart! I'll try and get the photos as soon as possible, but as usual I'm afraid my sources have little to nothing about Queripel. Skinny87 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)

Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lonsdale

It's a bit annoying, because I'm sure I've seen that photo somewhere, captioned as being from the investiture ceremnony at Buckingham Palace in Dec 44, but can I find that picture now? That said, Lonsdale doesn't seem to be sporting any head scars in the pic, which I might expect only 3 months later, so maybe I'm wrong. I'd be tempted to give Owen a few more days to see if he can sort it (although the website won't help - I can see why it might have crashed you!). Got Harlecode's Wings of War yesterday - bigger than Arnhem but a pound cheaper! Ranger Steve (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was gonna finish it tonight - bit more intro to MG, the formation of Lonsdale force and their subsequent defence of the perimeter - both Baskeyfield's and Cain's actions were in Lonsdale Force so it'll flesh out nicely I hope. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obit's pretty short. I'm going to be a bit busy today, but I'll try to get it over to you later on. David Underdown (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy evening, but I fleshed out the Arnhem bits when I had a sec. Still a bit to add about defense actions, especially on the 25th, so I'll try and do that later. I hope Owen doesn't think we've just tag teamed an article he was working on! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obit should be on its way. Let me know that it's got there - I've sometimes had problems emailing stuff direct from the archive site. David Underdown (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11 Division

Am I getting this right? Still a bit of a rough draft at the moment. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre, you wouldn't think military organisation could get so complex! I'll try and incorporate as much of the info on the talk page as I can, but I have nothing of my own about this subject, so if you have any sources for the fact tags I'll need to add, do feel free to chuck them in there. Probably won't finish it today though.... Ranger Steve (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richard Lonsdale

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Lonsdale, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} 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.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Varisty

Hi Skinny, seems this guy isnt going to let up attempting to trash the article. He has struck again on the Varisty article and, if you are not aware of it, your own archive. I would suggest checking out his edits to American airborne landings in Normandy; editing sourced statements inline with his claims etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Grouse

Got myself a lovely maroon hardback copy of the Red Beret by Sunders yesterday :). Anyway, I've just finished reading this book by Ray Mears . Excellent read, and full of stuff about Freshman, Grouse and Gunnerside and was thinking of putting together some stuff on Operation Grouse. Do you think Operation Freshman is the place to do it, or maybe give it it's own article? I've also got a little Freshman info I can expand (German troop dispositions etc...) Ranger Steve (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would oppose at a GAR. There's a difference between an article being plain bad and merely needing expansion. Tonga would sit in the latter to get it to A class I reckon, but that doesn't make it bad now. As far as I can tell there might be one minor quibble about a German regiment, but the article doesn't look to have changed much since its GA award. It's comprehensive, well referenced and a good read, so it deserves it GA tag. When you have more energy, expand it (I can help if you like, I have loads of D-Day books, I just don't edit the articles much), and work towards upping its class. I wouldn't demote it because you haven't done that yet! I'm starting to wonder about some of the contributors on articles you work on...... Anyway, I'm gonna be off and on line for the next week while I move house. If you get time, feel free to check out my 11 Div sandbox and see what you think. I'm unsure how much detail to include. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

Looking at the edit history and number of warning received, I thought a short block was in order - hopefully it'll get their attention and they'll slow down a bit. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Very many thanks for the barnstar - it is really appreciated Dormskirk (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New editors make mistakes

I think the newly-registered Jarlsburg Franklin (talk · contribs) probably got lost when he was editing Wikipedia talk:Notability, I don't think it was vandalism. I left him a {{welcome}} message. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Check your email? Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favor on Chamberlain

Could you put the "support" in bold at the start of a paragraph so it is more obvious when the FA Delegate comes looking down the page? I'm very grateful, btw for your good feelings and praise. People on wiki are so much more likely to criticize than praise, it seems, that it really stands out when someone like you says a few good things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Arnhem related frivolities

Hey Skinny, how goes? I've been meaning to ask for a few days if you're interested in my latest little project, which is probably gonna take some time but I hope to be able to write to GA standard at least. Not exactly a kings ransom of sources about the subject, but I'm reading a book on it at the mo that's quite good. I figured you might at least like the movie, so feel free to pitch in if you like. On an related note, while I was following the links in it I read up on First Allied Airborne Army. Only thing that occurred to me is that a certain Mr Browning doesn't seem to get mentioned! I thought about logging in as an IP and dismembering the article on its talk page (joke), but seriously I do think other than being Browningless it might be GA worthy. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same book I'm reading now. Ideally I wanna get William Goldman's book on the production too. With Waddy's magazine article the sources cover just about everything that'll be needed I hope. This is my first film article and it's soooo easy to wander into OR with this I think, but I wanna stick to hard refs and avoid synth. Just clarifying Major Carlyle's identity is tricky if you see what I mean - there isn't a ref that explicitly states "Carlyle is based on Tatham-Warter", but I think with Frost's bio I can just get away with it!

I actually thought FAAA was fairly complete as it is, although I guess the battle sections could be expanded further. That would round it off nicely I'd have thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fryatt GAR

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've already addressed most of the points raised. I'm not sure what you mean about the lede, as it is already a paragraph long. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final few issues have been attended to. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Skinny87/Archive4